New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA

This is HUGE! This is news that supports what I've been saying over and over again. Not evolution but a natural interpretation of evolution is a lie and a fantasy. It can't happen and it doesn't happen.

This goes against one of the key assumptions of the theory of evolution.

Let me repeat that!

This goes against one of the key assumptions of the theory of evolution.

A natural interpretation is full of asinine assumptions. It's a belief and it has nothing to do with science.

Genetic changes that crop up in an organism's DNA may not be completely random, new research suggests. That would upend one of the key assumptions of the theory of evolution.

Researchers studying the genetic mutations in a common roadside weed, thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana), have discovered that the plant can shield the most "essential" genes in its DNA from the changes, while leaving other sections of its genome to build up more alterations.

"I was totally surprised by the non-random mutations we discovered," lead author Grey Monroe, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, told Live Science. "Ever since high-school biology, I have been told that mutations are random."

www.livescience.com...

Let me repeat that last part.

"I was totally surprised by the non-random mutations we discovered," lead author Grey Monroe, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, told Live Science. "Ever since high-school biology, I have been told that mutations are random."

This is why a natural interpretation of evolution isn't ust wrong, it's evil. It's only purpose is to separate man from God through the lie that random mutations drive evolution.

There's no evidence, absolutely none, that random mutationss have anything to do with adaptation. This is strictly the domain of intelligent design. I've been saying for years that mutations have to be non random. There's some random mutations that occur because of copying errors. DNA is a code that's copied over and over again so there will be errors just like you see in computer code. The Designer put in place error correction and proofreading that allows us to evolve and not be overrun with copying errors. We would simply die out. Where else do we see error correction? In computers!Intelligent minds design error correction and quantum error correcting codes not randomness.

Here's some of my threads on this:

Adaptations are clear evidence of intelligent design
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's ILLOGICAL to think God didn't Create the Universe
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's more, but I will stop there. I will not go over everything again but I will touch on some key points.

We've been taught in science books that species adapt to their environment. I remember being taught that in 7th grade. Some scientist realize what this means and they're panicking. They know this points to intelligent design and non random mutations.

This is what we see in the fossil record and the genome. We don't see any evidence of the core aspect of Darwin's theory. We see a one to one correspondence. When an organism needs x traits to survive they evolve x traits.

A natural interpretation of evolution says species don't try to adapt to their environment because there's no purpose and no direction in a natural interpretation of evolution. Darwin said this:

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

This quote from Darwin DESTROYS a natural interpretation of evolution.

Darwin thought that environmental pressures occurred, which triggered random mutations. These random mutations produced "INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES" or different, random traits that reached the environment. That's when natural selection selected blindly and randomly, the traits that survived best in the environment through reproduction. Darwin saw this as a blind, random process so of course he was expecting to see "INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES."

When we discovered the super computer in DNA and no evidence of Darwin's "INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES" this should have been the end of a natural interpretation of evolution. Sadly, it has become a belief not science. Atheist and materialist use a natural interpretation of evolution to support their belief system.

What we see is a one to on correspondence in the fossil record. An organism needs x to survive and it evolves x. Just look at extremophiles! There's no evidence of species trying not to adapt to their environment. This is what Darwin and others blindly believed. This is a fantasy. Look at sickle cell:

When Malaria spreads throughout a population a specific mutation occurs at a specific point that changes Glutamic Acid to Valine. This change gives a survival advantage to those with Malaria. You don't get Leucine mutating into Histidine or Histidine mutating into Valine. You get a specific mutation at a specific point that gives a population where Malaria is spreading a protective advantage against Malaria. There's no evolution needed just a change in the code at the exact point needed to respond to the change in the environment.

This is design! When x(malaria) occurs then y(a mutation) occurs at a specific point that gives carriers of malaria a protective advantage. Where's the evolution of information?



The article says this:

The new finding does not disprove or discredit the theory of evolution, and the researchers said randomness still plays a big role in mutations. But the study does show that these genetic alterations are more complex than scientists previously believed.

This is just cognitive dissonance.

First, there's no evidence that randomness of mutations plays any role in adaptation. This is just a blindly believed lie. The paper also talks about copying errors.

"DNA is a fragile molecule; on average, the DNA in a single cell is damaged between 1,000 and 1 million times every day," Monroe said. "DNA also has to be copied each time a cell divides, which can introduce copying errors."

Luckily for humans and all other organisms, our cells can counteract a lot of this damage. "Our cells are working constantly to correct DNA and have evolved complex molecular machines, DNA repair proteins, to search for mistakes and make repairs," Monroe said.

www.livescience.com...

So these complex molecular machines with modular parts just randomly evolved the right size and shape and came together at the right angles?

THIS IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN!

a reply to: neoholographic

The new finding does not disprove or discredit the theory of evolution, and the researchers said randomness still plays a big role in mutations. But the study does show that these genetic alterations are more complex than scientists previously believed.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

From the attached article:

The non-random pattern in mutations between gene and non-gene regions of DNA suggests that there is a defensive mechanism in place to prevent potentially disastrous mutations.

"In genes coding for proteins essential for survival and reproduction, mutations are most likely to have harmful effects, potentially causing disease and even death," Monroe said. "Our results show that genes, and essential genes in particular, experience a lower mutation rate than non-gene regions in Arabidopsis. The result is that offspring have a lower chance of inheriting a harmful mutation."

Researchers found that to protect themselves, essential genes send out special signals to DNA repair proteins. This signaling is not done by the DNA itself but by histones, specialized proteins DNA wraps around to make up chromosomes. 

"Based on the result of our study, we found that gene regions, especially for the most biologically essential genes, are wrapped around histones with particular chemical marks," Monroe said. "We think these chemical marks are acting as molecular signals to promote DNA repair in these regions."

The idea of histones having unique chemical markers is not new, Monroe said. Previous studies into mutations in cancer patients have also found that these chemical markers can affect whether DNA repair proteins fix mutations properly, he added. 

However, this is the first time these chemical markers have been shown to influence genome-wide mutation patterns and, as a result, evolution by natural selection.

However, more research into animal genomes is needed before researchers can tell if the same non-random mutations occur in humans. "Our discoveries were made in plants and do not give rise to new treatments," Monroe said, "but they change our fundamental understanding of mutation and inspire many new research directions."

Don't you think that bolded text might have been useful to include in your title? And how do you know the not-entirely-random "moderating" function didn't originally manifest as a random but helpful mutation that survived through successful generations of germline inheritors?

a reply to: myselfaswell

What sounds reasonable?

It says randomness plays a role in mutations(copying errors). It doesn't provide a shred of evidence that random mutations drive adaptations as Darwin envisioned. That's the key to a natural interpretation of evolution. It's a fantasy that belongs in middle earth with the hobbits.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
From the attached article:

The non-random pattern in mutations between gene and non-gene regions of DNA suggests that there is a defensive mechanism in place to prevent potentially disastrous mutations.

"In genes coding for proteins essential for survival and reproduction, mutations are most likely to have harmful effects, potentially causing disease and even death," Monroe said. "Our results show that genes, and essential genes in particular, experience a lower mutation rate than non-gene regions in Arabidopsis. The result is that offspring have a lower chance of inheriting a harmful mutation."

Researchers found that to protect themselves, essential genes send out special signals to DNA repair proteins. This signaling is not done by the DNA itself but by histones, specialized proteins DNA wraps around to make up chromosomes. 

"Based on the result of our study, we found that gene regions, especially for the most biologically essential genes, are wrapped around histones with particular chemical marks," Monroe said. "We think these chemical marks are acting as molecular signals to promote DNA repair in these regions."

The idea of histones having unique chemical markers is not new, Monroe said. Previous studies into mutations in cancer patients have also found that these chemical markers can affect whether DNA repair proteins fix mutations properly, he added. 

However, this is the first time these chemical markers have been shown to influence genome-wide mutation patterns and, as a result, evolution by natural selection.

However, more research into animal genomes is needed before researchers can tell if the same non-random mutations occur in humans. "Our discoveries were made in plants and do not give rise to new treatments," Monroe said, "but they change our fundamental understanding of mutation and inspire many new research directions."

Don't you think that bolded text might have been useful to include in your title? And how do you know the not entirely random mutation didn't originally manifest as a random but helpful mutation?

Nothing you quoted refutes anything that I have said.

There shouldn't be any non random mutations anywhere as he said in the beginning of the article:

"I was totally surprised by the non-random mutations we discovered," lead author Grey Monroe, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, told Live Science. "Ever since high-school biology, I have been told that mutations are random."

Also, there's not a shred of evidence that random mutations drive adaptations. Species adapt to their environment. It's a one to one correspondence. Do you have evidence that refutes this??? Waiting.........

a reply to: neoholographic

Environment drives adaptations, not mutations. Mutations are largely incidental whether they assist or don't assist.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic

Environment drives adaptations, not mutations. Mutations are largely incidental whether they assist or don't assist.

First, Darwin didn't see it this way. This is why he looked for INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES.

What you're saying makes no sense. How can the environment change a point mutation from Glutamic Acid to Valine? This is caused by a mutation at a specific point in the genome.

Explain how the environment causes changes in the genome at the exact point where the organism needs it to survive?

Where's this magic environment?

It's funny how you guys constantly change the goalpost when you realize how asinine the theory is.

For years it has been mutations drive adaptations and speciation. Now you realize there's not a shred of evidence for that and now it's some magical environment that causes mutations at the exact points the organism needs to survive LOL!

a reply to: neoholographic

The first red flag to look for in any strawman creationist topic is relentless invocation of pre 60s (that's 1860 not 1960) Darwinian evolution. The theory of evolution has what you might call a NEW testament you should look up.

The environment factors heavily into deciding which creatures survive and which don't. Evidently at some point, plants developed a genetic nose for detecting unhelpful changes (read: weird crap that doesn't match the worksite) and moderate that activity. Likely a function that proved most convenient in situations where plants were confronted with toxic elements and the ones who featured this crazy useful chemical alert in their anatomy recovered better. This isn't evidence of anything except botany is occasionally a fun topic to discuss at brunch. Even the article itself says there's nothing particularly useful about this information until they can find a more immediately relevant specimen to tinker with.

a reply to: neoholographic

Can prayer facilitate genetic change?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Again, the fact that you flat out lied about mutations shows you're a blind believer. You said:

Mutations are largely incidental whether they assist or don't assist.

This is just a lie. Mutations drive evolution and they're blind, random and without purpose. This is the fantasy of a natural interpretation of evolution. This isn't from the pre 60's. Here's an article from 2011 from nature.

Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution

Mutations are essential to evolution. Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation. The new genetic variant (allele) spreads via reproduction, and differential reproduction is a defining aspect of evolution. It is easy to understand how a mutation that allows an organism to feed, grow or reproduce more effectively could cause the mutant allele to become more abundant over time. Soon the population may be quite ecologically and/or physiologically different from the original population that lacked the adaptation. Even deleterious mutations can cause evolutionary change, especially in small populations, by removing individuals that might be carrying adaptive alleles at other genes.

www.nature.com...

The fact that you had to lie shows how asinine and illogical a blind belief in a natural interpretation of evolution is. You said:

Mutations are largely incidental whether they assist or don't assist.

LOL, I think you better call Nature and the rest of the scientific community that blindly believes this lie. Environmental pressures trigger random mutations which are selected via reproduction when they reach the environment as so the fiction goes!

The fact that you had to lie to try and downplay mutations shows that even blind believers inherently know it's a fantasy!

a reply to: neoholographic

Explain how the environment causes changes in the genome at the exact point where the organism needs it to survive?

I've learnt by now it's pointless debating you... but it may take millions or billions of new offspring before the genome is altered in the exact right spot. All you need to do in order to prove random mutation can cause evolution is to simulate it. I've always suspected there was a lot more to it, because evolution seems to work better in the real world than it does in simulations. The method described in this study is most likely just one of many other methods which has evolved over time to ensure the mutations only occur in the places which can handle mutations. Saying it somehow undermines evolution seem like a big leap of logic, it seems to me this study is strengthening our understanding of evolution and how mutations can be controlled to a certain extent, making them less random, but still very random.

a reply to: neoholographic

The meaning of "incidental" here is "happenstance" aka accidental and perhaps semi relevant. So you're right and I apologize for the confusion, I am capable of that much character.

My point, is that mutations are sometimes useful and often not useful. Any useful mutations are coincidence, which is where I made the mistake of saying "incidental" which implies they are not correlated with successful evolution because that's not entirely true. Although the 99.9% of historically documented life who are now extinct or endangered may argue in the affirmative because mortality is inevitable. There is no god mode available in any combination of mutations at any point in the process of evolution. All life metabolizes, all life bleeds, all life dies.

The fact is, this is fiction but to be fair to Darwin he lacked the knowledge we have today. The people who still believe this fantasy are doing so to support their belief system.

When we look at the fossil record and the genome, we see no evidence that random mutations are behind adaptations in any way. We see a one to one correspondence. The organism needs x traits to survive in an environment and x traits evolve.

If this isn't the case, what's natural selection selecting???

Natural selection is a process that determines which animals are the least suitable to sustain or protect themselves in a given environment.

Show me evidence that mutations are controlled but still VERY random. That's just nonsense.

Apparently you're taking the term "random" very literally. Like, GTA chaos mod literally (YouTube it, or don't).

All genetic mutations are physically limited within a parameter, which is why you don't see horses made of pure gold, or shape shifting reptilians, or angels with quantum photon viscera that can telepathically manipulate chemical bonds or freeze time. Because that kind of biology absolutely is random and nonsensical.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You said:

it seems to me this study is strengthening our understanding of evolution and how mutations can be controlled to a certain extent, making them less random, but still very random.

Sometimes I wonder if you guys read the things you write before you post.

Show me evidence that mutations are controlled but still VERY random. That's just nonsense.

There's no evidence that random mutations have anything to do with adaptations. This is what Darwin thought and that's why he expected to see so many INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES.

This is the whole point of natural selection!

Environmental pressures trigger random mutations. This is blind and random. So all of these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES blindly and without purpose reach the environment and through reproduction, natural selection selects the traits that survive best in the environment and these traits spread throughout the population.

The fact is, this is fiction but to be fair to Darwin he lacked the knowledge we have today. The people who still believe this fantasy are doing so to support their belief system.

When we look at the fossil record and the genome, we see no evidence that random mutations are behind adaptations in any way. We see a one to one correspondence. The organism needs x traits to survive in an environment and x traits evolve.

If this isn't the case, what's natural selection selecting???

I don't think you guys even understand the theory you blindly believe.

I love the 'random' argument...

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic

Environment drives adaptations, not mutations. Mutations are largely incidental whether they assist or don't assist.

This is partially true. Environment is the gaps that get filled in by the random mutations.

a reply to: strongfp

That video does make some valid points. I think a reasonable place to start, is junking the whole "natural selection" language because it IS poorly phrased. A better phrase would be "probabilistic elimination" which doesn't roll off the tongue but does point to reduction as the active process, and more specifically it underlines blind chance as the scythe of fate as opposed to "providence" which is a hypothetical influence at this point.

a reply to: strongfp

Did you even watch the video?

He talks about non random natural selection. Dawkins knows how asinine it is to say a random blind process produced clear design and molecular machines with 20, 30 and 100 different parts that viola!, just happened to be the right size, shape and come together at the right angles to carry out specific tasks.

Dawkins is playing semantics. Natural selection is blind and random. It happens after the fact. When he says it's non random, he's talking about how the traits that survive best in the environment reproduce and survive better than organisms with traits that don't survive as good in the environment but that's like saying you put 10 strong body builders in a cage with 10 weak and out of shape people, there will be more strong body builders that survive.

How did the traits get there?

The body builders worked out a lot and built their muscle. This is the point. When adaptations occur, the traits needed to survive reach the environment. There's no evidence that random, blind mutations have anything to do with these traits tat reach the environment. This destroys a natural interpretation of evolution.

When Malaria spreads throughout a population a specific mutation occurs at a specific point that changes Glutamic Acid to Valine. This change gives a survival advantage to those with Malaria. You don't get Leucine mutating into Histidine or Histidine mutating into Valine. You get a specific mutation at a specific point that gives a population where Malaria is spreading a protective advantage against Malaria.

There's no evolution needed just a change in the code at the exact point needed to respond to the change in the environment. This is design! When x(malaria) occurs then y(a mutation) occurs at a specific point that gives carriers of malaria a protective advantage. Where's the evolution of information?

Where's the fossil record for all the giant mammals that became extinct 12 thousand years ago evolving into the smaller diverse versions we see today, and how is it possible in 12 thousand years.

a reply to: neoholographic

Did you even watch the video?

Yes, I did.

Natural selection is blind and random

Did you?

Nothing is 'random' in evolution, it happens for a reason, the mutations are a result of the driving forces that lead up to that mutation, it might seem random, but it's all a song and dance sort of speak.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Natural selection makes perfect sense when you know what 'natural' meant back in Darwin's day. It's a more of a grandfathered term that has been abused by creationists and contorted in all sorts of ways that it lost it's meaning.