Changes

:::My biology-degreed wife assures me that mutation does not necessarily mean that evolution occurred. What the paper claimed is that evolution (a “key innovation”) occurred in the lab. The key innovation supposedly increased the mutation rate. In the experiments, the observed mutation rate increased after generation 31,000, but not enough to make a statistically significant claim that the rate is not constant. The analysis in the paper was similar to flipping a coin ten times, counting six heads and claiming that the coin must be biased against tails. In reality, there’s nothing surprising about a fair coin producing slightly more of one outcome than the other. Just like there's nothing surprising about there being slightly more mutations in later generations than early generations given the null hypothesis (constant mutation rate). [[User:SJohnson|SJohnson]] 10:46, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::My biology-degreed wife assures me that mutation does not necessarily mean that evolution occurred. What the paper claimed is that evolution (a “key innovation”) occurred in the lab. The key innovation supposedly increased the mutation rate. In the experiments, the observed mutation rate increased after generation 31,000, but not enough to make a statistically significant claim that the rate is not constant. The analysis in the paper was similar to flipping a coin ten times, counting six heads and claiming that the coin must be biased against tails. In reality, there’s nothing surprising about a fair coin producing slightly more of one outcome than the other. Just like there's nothing surprising about there being slightly more mutations in later generations than early generations given the null hypothesis (constant mutation rate). [[User:SJohnson|SJohnson]] 10:46, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::::SJohnson, not to say anything about your wife, but has she had a 400 level molecular genetics course (most general biology degrees do not cover the detail unless they are specialized)?  If so, she would have mentioned that if the mutation passes to the offspring and is selectively beneficial to the population then it is a step of evolution as along as the conditions continue through the sharing of the mutation with the population and the environment is such that reduces the growth rate of the non-transformed population.  While not all mutations are signs that evolution occurred the mutations that pass to offspring and provide a benefit compared to other offspring are very strong indicators.  In the case of this paper the population that evolved the cit+ was able to metabolize a chemical in their environment which allowed for an adaptation advantage compared to the non-transformed colonies.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:19, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

::::SJohnson, not to say anything about your wife, but has she had a 400 level molecular genetics course (most general biology degrees do not cover the detail unless they are specialized)?  If so, she would have mentioned that if the mutation passes to the offspring and is selectively beneficial to the population then it is a step of evolution as along as the conditions continue through the sharing of the mutation with the population and the environment is such that reduces the growth rate of the non-transformed population.  While not all mutations are signs that evolution occurred the mutations that pass to offspring and provide a benefit compared to other offspring are very strong indicators.  In the case of this paper the population that evolved the cit+ was able to metabolize a chemical in their environment which allowed for an adaptation advantage compared to the non-transformed colonies.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:19, 11 March 2009 (EDT)