I want to ask that how the genes are mutating, in the sense it is the chance of possiblity and this genes is good that is again a possiblity and this gene is carried to the next generation is again a possiblity..... so how in the short period of few million years these many mutations occured which evolve into human cell with billion of base pairs from  inorganic molucules.............. Isn't these period very short for these much mutations to occur ? I am a life science student and so don't want any regular or religious answer ..............  Plz..............
123217
The short answer is natural selection - once these "simple molecules" attain the ability to self replicate (there are multiple theories on how this came about because there are many ways this could have happened), the replicons with the best ability to survive and make copies of themselves make the most copies.  These then can mutate - these mutated versions then undergo the same type of natural selection for the versions most able to make copies that have a high ability to replicate.  Every novelty in evolution is made in a similar way:\nRandom differences in a population followed by\nNatural selection for the organisms best able to propogate their DNA.  \nIn this way we get cells (hold in the replication machinery and templates better)\nTissues (ability to tolerate new environments)\nSensory organs (reaction to new stimuli)\netc. \nGood luck, though fairly intuitive, this can be a very complicated topic once you try to get into specifics!
351730
Evolution doesn't cease to exist simply because there is no need for it.  Genetic variation and mutation are always going to occur.  However, the 'natural selection' aspect of it may not be applicable.
61150
Chances of genetic mutation are 100%.  They are happening all the time in your body, but your body fixes them most of the time.  However, sometimes it doesn't catch them and thats when you get cancer.
465464
This is actually a good question, and the fact that you thought your way to it is nice.\n\nIn terms of viral evolution, first think of the big picture.  Virii didn't come first, but as can be deduced from their lack of cellular functions, are actually derivative of something else.  In that sense, virii could be viewed as evolved as their targets are.  \n\nAnd in the sense that the "goal" or "purpose" of any organism is to make more of itself, the virus is already perfectly suited to this, and very effective at it.   (until you get developed enough mentally, like us, then you can also make art or yahoo questions or what have you). \n\nNow for the small picture.  Viral replication can be very sloppy.  Some viral genetic material is stored as RNA, which is less stable than DNA and more prone to mutations.  (Funny that organisms ended up with DNA as their genetic material and not RNA).  The inherint "sloppyness" in replication allows for a high rate of mutations.  This can be viewed as their rapid evolution.  Which is why you can get the flu every year, or a bazillion colds (there are also lots of different virii that can cause colds, but old ones can mutate and infect you again).\n\nNow on a practical side, bacterial genomics has given us some examples of virii that have managed to become stable, non-destructive parts of bacterial genomes, thus ensuring their replication and not destroying the host in the process (see sources for an example).  This of course isn't evolution like what you're talking about, but it is a virus that at some point in history made the jump from some nucleic acid that hijacked a host in order to replicate, to a stable aspect of that organism.
562397
Technicallly, everybody is a mutant! We all carry some alterations unique to us in our genomes, this is part of what makes us different. And yes, over time we will evolve as a society to carry genes that are more advantageous to us due to the process of natural selection. It's a case of survival of the fittest!
672641
Hi, EyeLoveJesus!  I like your question!  :-)   Evolution is still a theory---it is not proven 100% yet.  Science is also not stoic and unchanging---it is always flexing and changing over time and by different discoveries.  I don't agree that scientists are "desperate to disprove "god"".   Science isn't focusing on "god".  It is focusing on studying the world and universe.  :-)  Anyway....\n\nScientists tend to form different theories (not facts) from the same discovery.   It is fascinating to learn about the different theories and to decide which one likes better.   Scientists don't think alike at all.  They tend to see different things in the same objects.  :-)   There are usually heated debates and discussions among them!  ;-)\n\nFor me, I know of two different theories of how evolution might have processed:  macro evolution ("giant leaps") or micro-evolution.   I tend to take more stock in micro-evolution.  That means each generation is born with very tiny mutations that will eventually create or de-create whatever trait or physical attribute of the organism.   Macro-evolution happens when one generation is born with a completely different physical attribute that none of the species has.\n\nI hope I clarified.  I will keep an eye on this Q as I find this fascinating!  Thanks for sharing the link.  :-)
39384
Despite your poorly worded question, I think you are trying to ask if DNA refutes the idea of natural selection and evolution, right?  I think DNA, if anything, supports the idea of evolution.  In my simple understanding of evolution, I was able to take 1 protein from a turtle, human, lizard, snake, rat, monkey (using a protein/DNA sequence database, www.pubmed.com), and find how how different they are.  By using the accepted rate of mutation (1 base pair of DNA per million years), you can actually figure out how long ago did the species diverge simply based on random mutations.  By doing this, I made the evolutionary timeline that you see in textbooks all the time.  So in a way, I "proved" evolution by just doing something anybody can do with the resources available to me.\n\nThe part that I skip over in this program is that when a mutation is "bad" (something that would make it less likely to survive), that animal dies off.  Therefore, only "good" mutations will persist.  So when Watson and Crick in the 1950's "discovered" DNA, they in fact show how genes are passed on and how evolution can occur on a purely chemical level.\n\nI know this reply is a bit scattered, but if you do some research in scientific magazines/journals/text-books, evolution isn't some half-brained invention by anti-Christians (in fact most Evolutionists are Christians by the sheer fact that most Americans are Christian).  Evolution is a great theory in the sense it could easily be disproven, but it hasn't, therefore its the best we got until we find some greater truth.
131196
NatBoCheck: Well for starters even creationists believe in microevolution, but then you probably don't know what that is.\n\nGive me a few mins...\n\n"The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve."\n\n"The mechanisms of evolution are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, recombination and gene flow."\n\nMutation\n\nThe cellular machinery that copies DNA sometimes makes mistakes. These mistakes alter the sequence of a gene. This is called a mutation. There are many kinds of mutations. A point mutation is a mutation in which one "letter" of the genetic code is changed to another. Lengths of DNA can also be deleted or inserted in a gene; these are also mutations. Finally, genes or parts of genes can become inverted or duplicated. Typical rates of mutation are between 10-10 and 10-12 mutations per base pair of DNA per generation. \n\nNatural Selection\n\nSome types of organisms within a population leave more offspring than others. Over time, the frequency of the more prolific type will increase. The difference in reproductive capability is called natural selection. Natural selection is the only mechanism of adaptive evolution; it is defined as differential reproductive success of pre- existing classes of genetic variants in the gene pool.\n\nThe most common action of natural selection is to remove unfit variants as they arise via mutation. [natural selection: differential reproductive success of genotypes] In other words, natural selection usually prevents new alleles from increasing in frequency. This led a famous evolutionist, George Williams, to say "Evolution proceeds in spite of natural selection."\n\nNatural selection can maintain or deplete genetic variation depending on how it acts.\n\nGenetic Drift\n\nAllele frequencies can change due to chance alone. This is called genetic drift. Drift is a binomial sampling error of the gene pool. What this means is, the alleles that form the next generation's gene pool are a sample of the alleles from the current generation. When sampled from a population, the frequency of alleles differs slightly due to chance alone.\n\nAlleles can increase or decrease in frequency due to drift. The average expected change in allele frequency is zero, since increasing or decreasing in frequency is equally probable. A small percentage of alleles may continually change frequency in a single direction for several generations just as flipping a fair coin may, on occasion, result in a string of heads or tails. A very few new mutant alleles can drift to fixation in this manner.\n\nRecombination\n\nEach chromosome in our sperm or egg cells is a mixture of genes from our mother and our father. Recombination can be thought of as gene shuffling. Most organisms have linear chromosomes and their genes lie at specific location (loci) along them. Bacteria have circular chromosomes. In most sexually reproducing organisms, there are two of each chromosome type in every cell. For instance in humans, every chromosome is paired, one inherited from the mother, the other inherited from the father. When an organism produces gametes, the gametes end up with only one of each chromosome per cell. Haploid gametes are produced from diploid cells by a process called meiosis.\n\nIn meiosis, homologous chromosomes line up. The DNA of the chromosome is broken on both chromosomes in several places and rejoined with the other strand. Later, the two homologous chromosomes are split into two separate cells that divide and become gametes. But, because of recombination, both of the chromosomes are a mix of alleles from the mother and father.\n\nRecombination creates new combinations of alleles. Alleles that arose at different times and different places can be brought together. Recombination can occur not only between genes, but within genes as well. Recombination within a gene can fo
222402
>>>> How did we evolve?\n\nThe same way everything evolved: changes in gene frequencies.\n\n>>>>>How have we become what we are?\n\nFrom what starting point? Bacteria? Lizards? Rats? Monkeys? Homo erectus?\n\n>>>>>What made us evolve into what we are now?\n\nNatural selection.\n\n>>>>>It can't just be climate change and surroundings.\n\nIt isn't. It was natural selection acted upon by environment.\n\n>>>>Are characteristics passed down?\n\n\nYes, they are.
643639
Of course there are. All muatation actually is, is a mistake in duplicating DNA when the cell divides. Instead of the original code, you get a slightly altered one. Happens all the time in single cell organizmes, like bacteria. If the altered code provides some evolutionary advantge it is likely to be preserved or even spred through natural selection, to eventually replace the original.\nMutation happens in multicelular organizms as well, but the effect is not always so noticable. Given enough time for evolution to do it's magic, you could have whole different spicies that originated from mutated variaties of pre-existing ones, that may or may not have become exinct in the meantime. That said, the likleyhood of a mutation having a positive effect is small. It is more likely to cause harm then good and is known to the orighin of all manner of nasty diseases.\nOf course, genes can only do so much. You could say that something like telepathy may be possible, after all, we are far from utilizing our whole brain, and mutated genes could possibly do that. They can only give us such attributes as are possible according to the laws of physics, so not so much with the shooting laser bolts from your eyes and stuff like that.
528539
It's a key element in evolution, and comes about through modifications of an organism's DNA via radiation, chemical poisoning, or simple mischance in cell replication.  The daugther organism can inherit the modified DNA, and it may - or may not - give some advantage toward survival and subsequent reproduction.
37949
There have been hundreds of thousands of such experiments done. Moreover you can easily do them yourself using some nutriemt agar and an incubator with a few hundred dollars to pay someone to do the genetic workup.\n\ntalk.origins is your one stop shop for these types of quetsions. The site is highly reputable, well refernces, cites peer reveiewed science journals and most importantly lists literally hundreds of experimenst that show exactly what you describe.\n\nI've attached a couple link to pages that list a dozenor so such mutation studies, but the site has many hundreds of others.
103786
Organisms do not 'evolve' in response to changes in their environment in order to adapt to that change. Through a process called random mutation, mutant genes are constantly being produced in a small percentage of any given population. If there is no change to the environment, these mutant genes are generally less able to survive than their parent/s. However if there is a sudden or dramatic change, the mutant may be favored over the 'normal' population, because its mutant gene is compatible with the new conditions. This mutant gene now becomes the norm thus ensuring the survival of  its offspring who have inherited this gene.
310232
Because as a whole, human DNA doesn't change that much at all, so when it *does* change, it is going to be in a place on the genome that is not terribly important, for the most part (this is not 100% true, as single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs abound in functional genes.  but most of the variation in the genome occurs at sites that are not so important).  When your germ cells make sperm or eggs, there is always a possibility that a random mutation may occur.  This chance, of course, is higher if you live in or near New Jersey.  When your child receives this polymorphism, if it is not deadly to the child, then the child will pass it on.\nIn the past, settlers would move away from their country and to another area, and this small group of people would then interbreed and pass on whatever genetic variation they had to their children, and you would end up with a somewhat distinctive genetic profile.  We don't do this kind of pioneering genetics anymore, but the evidence of it is still with us.  Because of it, you can look at the differences between people's DNA and have a decent idea where their ancestors came from.
509428
When the body cells mutate, the mutation only affects that organism. It will not be passed on to future generations.\nIf the sex cell mutates, that mutated trait could be passed on to offspring and they could pass it along to their offspring and so on.
541067
You are looking at evolution incorrectly. It is not progressive and it has no direction. Your question is ill posed.
658580
LOL thats a touchy subject for religion... I mean if we can modify genes then the natural process of mutation can be proven... And on my god that would mean that they would have less to argue with evolution.