Enough genetic changes to cause normal development from single cells to produce individuals of a new species.
That's variation.
You did not give a direct answer to my question: "Do you read Portuguese?" but this claim of yours:Can only be true if you do, as for several months there was nothing about the Preá in any language except Portuguese.
AFAIK, my post was the first mention of them in English.
I did indeed answer your question. This information was posted here before on this forum and that is how I knew about it. Recollection does not confirm if you were the origin of the post.
[QUOTEDoing that will just lower your creditability more.)[/QUOTE]
We're actually talking about that right now.
To be even more specific, you have a much lower rate of the mutation being passed on in many cases, as said mutation must be in the successful germ cell which eventually becomes the fertilized zygote in sexually reproductive species.
I had to think about that one for a bit. Germ as in germinating sperm and ovum.
Once the mutation does make it to a subsequent offspring, then there is a chartable set of chances that it will continue on into future generations, without considering selective pressures at all; determined via the punnet square.
The question is how does that get transmitted to the sperm and Ovum before that? How does this edit occur? What are the conveyors?
This doesn't follow. If a mutation is a single altered gene in a population of 1 million genes, then the rate of reproduction of the population won't effect the survivability of the lone mutation as a percentage of the total gene count. 30 minute generations or 30 year generations, a mutation providing no benefit to it's host individual still has the same chance of being passed on as any other gene.
I don't agree because it's not simply a matter of getting passed on.
It's a matter of said gene surviving.
Could you link to the wiki article you're looking at? Because that's vastly incorrect. Most point mutations have no effect at all - when translating codons into amino acids for protein production, there is lots of coding duplication. Because of this, many chages in the coding do nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
"Mutation can result in several different types of change in DNA sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[4] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations.[1]"
"Therefore, the optimal mutation rate for a species is a trade-off between costs of a high mutation rate, such as deleterious mutations, and the metabolic costs of maintaining systems to reduce the mutation rate, such as DNA repair enzymes.[5] Viruses that use RNA as their genetic material have rapid mutation rates,[6] which can be an advantage since these viruses will evolve constantly and rapidly, and thus evade the defensive responses of e.g. the human immune system.[7]"
This gentleman makes several interesting statements on mutations I haven't confirmed yet.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/problem.html
For example, if a UUA sequence becomes a UUG or CUA or a few others, you still get Leucine form it, and the resultant protein is unaffected.
acknowledged I think the confusion is between observed natural mutations and induced mutations.
It does, but that only works when there is a template to work against. If the template is wrong, then it has no way of knowing.
What is the template?
In sexual reproducers, if an error escapes detection during meiosis and that cell is then used to create a new offspring, that offspring has no original template against which to notice that its TTG was supposed to be a TTC. It could notice later on that its transcription of TTG for some reason erroneously resulted in a UUC (the original RNA sequence its parents produced), but since its DNA template says TTG/UUG is correct, it will likely act as if UUC is in fact the wrong sequence.[/QUOTE]
You miss understand, sir.
I don't not seek accreditation. I do not desire status in your system. I never will. Your views are your own and you have them for your own reasons. Those agendas are aside from my continuing search for the facts and the truth. If I were to allow my rational mind to descend to popular opinion then there is no use in having my own mind is there? I would have your mind or someone else..I'd be a copy, a clone, subjugating my intelligence by means of the blind faith of credibility. This is a fascinating discussion lets not presume your goals of being viewed favorably reflect my own.