Forty-seven ways to produce heritable genetic change

Allen MacNeill has taken of the challenge of falsifying the objection to evolution usually framed, “How can random mutation” produce enough variation for evolution?” or “It’s only random mutation and natural selection.” In debate, random mutation is often assumed to be the substitution of one single amino acid for another, in other words, a single point mutation. Allen says,

Allen MacNeillI promised a list of the real sources of variation that provide the raw material for evolutionary change. It’s taken me a while, but here it is. This list includes “random mutation,’ of course, but also 46 other sources of variation in either the genotypes or phenotypes of living organisms. Note that the list is not necessarily exhaustive, nor are any of the entries in the list necessarily limited to the level of structure or function under which they are listed. On the contrary, this is clearly a list of the minimum sources of variation between individuals in populations. A comprehensive list would almost certainly include hundreds (and possibly thousands) of more detailed processes. Also, the list includes processes that change either genotypes or phenotypes or both, but does not include processes that are combinations of other processes in the list, again implying that a comprehensive listing would be much longer and more detailed.

Here’s his list of forty-six other ways to produce genetic change.

Commenter -DG adds,

Not so much an addition as perhaps a minor correction with the deletions. Not all deletions necessarily result in a frameshift, although of course this would be the most common for deletions of any multiple not of three. But it is certainly possible for 3 (or some multiple of 3) nucleotides to be inserted or deleted at the same time resulting in insertion/deletions of the protein primary sequence. This seems to be especially prevalent in loop regions of the protein three-dimensional structure and may be one of the mechanisms by which new protein domains occasionally arise.

Commenter SPARC adds,

You may add exon shuffling. It belongs to the gene structure section (insertions/deletions) but in most cases the reading frame isn’t changed. I would further add exonization of transposable elements usage of alternate promoters, alternative splicing, multiple polyA signals and trinucleotide repeat expansions.

Commenter Art says,

It would be very nice if you could fold a whole ‘nother universe of genetic and regulatory mechanisms into your list. For the sake of completeness, and because the ID movement (typified by Behe’s recent dismissal of these core mechanisms) cannot deal with the concept.

I speak, of course, of the regulation of gene expression at the level of RNA and protein breakdown. Not only are they central to life (it’s doubtful that multicellular life could exist without the negative regulatory mechanisms afforded by these processes), they are inherently “accessible” to evolutionary modification. This is because, in the ID vernacular, they involve low information modes of recognition and action.

Keywords for a revised list: microRNA, siRNA, exosome, ubiquitin, cullin, E3 ligase, proteasome, SUMO.

Commenter -DG replies,

Great additions SPARC, since I work on protein evolution I really should have remembered to add exon shuffling. Along the same lines of alternative splicing we also have RNA editing. It isn’t carried out in many known systems but its an interesting system as well.


Hover Cat conspiracy

Conspiracy theorists believe that there really are hover cats.

Humorous Pictures
see more crazy cat pics

Simplify SSH logins with SSH Key Setup Script

Paul Rothrock at Move to Iceland is generous enough to supply a link to his script to generate different SSH keys for different logins.

It’s not “Darwinism”

The Theory of Evolution, the Neo-Darwininan Theory, or the Modern Synthesis has gone far beyond Darwin’s knowledge. Genetics was unknown in 1859.
He was such a good scientist, and so cautious, that almost all of his basic predictions have held up.However, because of his cautious nature, he insisted that evolution must take vast spans of time and occur very gradually. His own contemporaries pointed out that his data did not require that and that he was hobbling himself with an unnecessary difficulty.

However, he had no knowledge of the rules of inheritance and puzzled over difficulties that are now solved because of genetics.

To limit evolution now to what Darwin knew is like saying that jet engines can’t exist and airplanes can’t fly because Darwin knew only steam engines. Rhetorically, it’s unfair to cherry-pick quotes from 50 years ago about what we didn’t know then and present them as the state of the art today. The theory was developed by God-fearing scientists who recognized what was happening all around them and tried to find an explanation. Evolution is probably the most confirmed theory in all of science. Thousands of people have been working on it for 150 years. In all that time, they haven’t broken it. It is a sturdy and workable explanation that makes testable predictions. It is observed in the lab and elucidated from historical details, just like the other historical sciences such as geology and archaeology. People have been working out naturalistic explanations for the earth’s characteristics, such as fossils and sediments, since the 1600s. Unless we want to return to emanations, humours, the four elements, and the heliocentric universe as well, let’s accept those millions of hours of observation and move on.

(Copied from a post to The BookCrossing chit-chat forum)

%d bloggers like this: