The scientific case for a common ancestor of humans and monkeys

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

What was the genetic make up of the parents? Did the parents display the mutation, or were they just carriers? Did all resulting offspring of the 2nd generation display this trait? How many offspring made up each of the successive generations? Did any of them have the trait?

"In the experiment, the Purdue researchers found that in 10% of watercress plants with two copies of a mutant gene called "hothead" didn't always blossom with deformed flowers like their parents, which carried the mutant genes. Instead, those plants had normal white flowers like their grandparents, which didn't carry the hothead gene and the deformity appeared only for a single generation.

The normal watercress plants with hothead genes appear to have kept a copy of the genetic coding from the grandparent plants and used it as a template to grow normally.

However, Pruitt's team didn't find the template in the plants' DNA or chromosomes where genetic information is stored and they did not determine whether a particular gene is encoded to carry out the recovery of the normal DNA."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2005-03-23-plant-evolution_x.htm

http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/agcomm/agnews/public/story.asp?newsid=1114

Regardless: I don't really see how this provides a "stopper" for evolution. In reality it shows that organisms undergo change, and are not tied down to a fixed "perfect design".

If the gene exists in animals and humans it would mean that the mutations would begin to die out by the 3rd generation meaning that the mutated animals would not pass on the mutation and would not evolve further.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Napoleon's

Thanks for the link, its pretty cool stuff.

However, I still don't see how this disproves evolution. If the plants with the "hothead" ability can correct damaging mutations, wouldn't this be an arguement FOR evolution? These plants are more likely to survive a strange mutation and breed more healthy plants.

No, precisely because they rejected the mutation and reverted back to the original structure. So, if animals have the ability to reject mutations the species with the mutation would not survive past the second generation.

 

[OdgenTugbyGlub]

No, precisely because they rejected the mutation and reverted back to the original structure. So, if animals have the ability to reject mutations the species with the mutation would not survive past the second generation.

However, does this phenomenon occur with all mutations, or just harmful ones like the one observed in the experiment (not blooming properly). The plants with the "hothead' protein (or whatever it is) are more likely to avoid harmful mutations, and therefore to survive.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

However, does this phenomenon occur with all mutations, or just harmful ones like the one observed in the experiment (not blooming properly). The plants with the "hothead' protein (or whatever it is) are more likely to avoid harmful mutations, and therefore to survive.

Having deformed buds is not a harmful mutation. Besides, any mutation could be "harmful" depending on the enviornment the species is exposed to.

 

[nkgupta80]

all your link proves is exactly why your source quotes:

"This means that inheritance can happen more flexibly than we thought," said Robert Pruitt, the paper's senior author.

so it doesn't disprove evolution. Rather it makes the process more complex, and possibly close ends on how certain traits replicate themselves while others are completely rejected. If this discovery was indeed big evidence against evolution, the scientific community would have been all over it.

 

[steen]

I said a mutation not a missing chromosome etc. There is an exception to the law of inheiritance anyway so that puts a stopper on evolutionary theory.

Hmm, because you say so? Please point out where the Scientific Theory of Evolution is countered by what you stated?

You provided examples of adaptation..entirely different than evolution.

I hope you are merely ignorant about this and not outright lying. Any adaptation means an alllele change in a subsequent generation, which is exactly what The Scientific Theory of Evolution states. As such, any adaptation is an example of Evolution.

Why do you see it necessary to make false claims about Evolution?

Why don't you clarify for us what YOU know the Scientific Theory of Evolution to be? Then perhaps we can avoid such silly mistakes as what you just dished out.

 

[steen]

Evolution IS adaption. Evolution is the formation of new species (defined as a popultion of animals that can no longer breed with the original population) through the process of "natural selection" or adaptation. Evolution is simply adaption on a grand time scale.

Actually, it is even broader and less specific than that. Evolution doesn't have to result in the formation of a new species to be Evolution. But I am curious about what NN will describe Evolution as being, so I will hold off on the details until he posts back.

 

[steen]

An experiment was done in a variety of plants. The parents had the mutation but it only lasted 1 generation. The 3rd generation rejected the mutated genes and reverted back to the genetic structure of the first generation.

And so what?

Now please clarify where the genotype was the same in the F2 generation as in the F0 generation.

 

[steen]

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66995,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_7

The article doesn't clarify whether this truly is a genotype reversal or merely a phenotype reversal. Neither does it address the possibility that the hothead mutation simply is not inheritable, making it more of a hybrid than a mutation, a hybridization that can be exitnguished in the phenotype of the subsequent generation exactly as it happens with the "Fragile X" syndrome in humans.

And still, how does this in any way discredit Evolution? Certainly, in the face of 150 years of Scientific Data, I would expect that you should be able to show much more of a flaw in the sciences than what you are trying to do here.

 

[steen]

If the gene exists in animals and humans it would mean that the mutations would begin to die out by the 3rd generation meaning that the mutated animals would not pass on the mutation and would not evolve further.

Which indeed happen to the mutations that do not confer a competitive advantage for the carrier compared to other members of its species. That's standard genetics and still doesn't show any "stopper" for Evolution. Are you again arguing from ignorance rather than from actual knowledge of Evolution? I hope you are not going to claim that standard genetics is disproving Evolution? because the Sciences say otherwise, and it would instantly brand you a liar.

So please assure us that you know of what you speak here!

 

[steen]

No, precisely because they rejected the mutation and reverted back to the original structure.

Well, they reverted back to phenotype, not necessarily genotype.

So, if animals have the ability to reject mutations the species with the mutation would not survive past the second generation.

You mean the "individuals," not "species," right? And so what? What is the significance of a non-competitive mutation not spreading in the population? After all, that is what we should expect according to the Scientific Theory of Evolution. Your example seems to confirm something already well-known.

 

[steen]

Having deformed buds is not a harmful mutation.

How do you know. The specifics of the flower shape, structure and design is what attracts specific polinators. If the pollinators do not provide pollen from the same species, the individual will not propagate.

Besides, any mutation could be "harmful" depending on the enviornment the species is exposed to.

Exactly. Most are neutral, some are harmful and some are beneficial. See the Sicle-Cell mutation as an example of a mutation which is either beneficial or harmful to a population depending on the environment. Excellent example of Evolution.