Since God Created The Earth What Are The Point Of The Other Planets?

[MormonFreeThinker]

species - "a group of animals or plants that are similar and can produce young animals or plants" 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species

 

I'm sorry, but scientist can't "confirm" common ancestors, they can only confirm common DNA sequences.  

 

The Church essay cites an interesting paper

 

17. Maanasa Raghavan and others, “Upper Palaeolithic Siberian Genome Reveals Dual Ancestry of Native Americans,” Nature, Nov. 20, 2013.

 

  The quote is in reference, as I have already pointed out, unique genetic profiles within a species. 

 

The essay doesn't mention the word "species"  How is that not cherry picking? I can cite the scientific literature. 

CFR 

 

Let me give you another example, there are several kinds of ERVs, and they can insert themselves at random locations. Humans and chimps have thousands of such ERVs in common -- the same type of ERV at the same location in the genome. 

 

  The only thing that science "knows" is that they share a common DNA sequence.  Everything else is an interpretation of the data.  It CAN be interpreted different ways, and NO interpretation is demonstrably true.

 

Science can tell you who is related to you, it can also help solve crimes. 

DNA is not 100% of philosophical proof, but it is strong evidence, the theory is evolution is the most successful theory in science. 

Edited December 11, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[pogi]

 

species - "a group of animals or plants that are similar and can produce young animals or plants" 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species

 

Again, see my above quotes.  One definition does nothing to demonstrate a universally accepted and agreed upon criteria. 

 

The essay doesn't mention the word "species"  How is that not cherry picking? I can cite the scientific literature. 

CFR 

 

The article specifically addressed "population genetics" (human species populations to be specific) and did not even hint at macroevolution. I am not cherry picking, I am using reading comprehension to not make conclusions for the church which the church never made.  It addressed observable data only, it made no attempt to predict what might happen over millions of years.  You are reading WAY (millions of years) between the lines. 

 

Let me give you another example, there are several kinds of ERVs, and they can insert themselves at random locations. Humans and chimps have thousands of such ERVs in common -- the same type of ERV at the same location in the genome. 

 

Guess what else, humans have fingers and so do chimps - so what?  Of course we are going to have similar genomes.  This whole idea of randomness is hogwash and is one major hole in the theory of evolution.  If all of these mutations and ERVs are completely random, how do you explain convergence?  The odds are impossible, it is inexplicable.  Oh no, my friend, it is not random, there is a designer.

Edited December 11, 2014 by pogi

[MormonFreeThinker]

Again, see my above quotes.  One definition does nothing to demonstrate a universally accepted and agreed upon criteria. 

 

But you said, "unique genetic profiles within a species"  

You use the word "species", but then you say that it is not well defined.  

 

Why are you using the word "species"? 

 

 

The article specifically addressed "population genetics" (human species populations to be specific) and did not even hint at macroevolution. I am not cherry picking, I am using reading comprehension to not make conclusions for the church which the church never made.  r.

 

But scientists use the same method to confirm common descent.  

 

About 99% of Biologists agree that the evidence for Macro-Evolution is strong.

 

Can you name just one Biologists (since the year 2000) that stop believing in macro- evolution?  

There is none, the reason is because Biologists understand the evidence. 

 

I can name many Biologists that were skeptical about Evolution, but now believe it because the evidence is very strong. 

 

Please answer my question, why do Biologists say that the evidence is very strong? 

Edited December 11, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[TheTyler90az]

Next time "noah" will have to build a space ship instead of a boat.

[pogi]

But you said, "unique genetic profiles within a species"  

You use the word "species", but then you say that it is not well defined.  

 

Why are you using the word "species"? 

 

Species is useful in language to communicate effectively, so that when I say chimp, you know what I am talking about.  But as a field of science it is crap.  The field of taxonomy is a mess of arbitrary boundaries of abstraction that nobody can agree on. 

 

But scientists use the same method to confirm common descent.  

 

 

"Confirm" is too strong a word.  Try "infer", it is more scientifically accurate language.  It is their interpretation of the data and nothing more.  

 

About 99% of Biologists agree that the evidence for Macro-Evolution is strong.

 

Can you name just one Biologists (since the year 2000) that stop believing in macro- evolution?  

There is none, the reason is because Biologists understand the evidence. 

 

I can name many Biologists that were skeptical about Evolution, but now believe it because the evidence is very strong. 

 

Please answer my question, why do Biologists say that the evidence is very strong? 

 

 

If you remove God from the picture, there is no other legitimate interpretation of the data.  So, in answer to your question, yes the evidence for evolution is strong.   Evolution is the only thing that makes sense in the absence of God.  Because scientists will not and cannot include God in the equation, all they have to work with is evolution.  God is not science.  So, the fact that most biologists believe in evolution says nothing to me.  There is nothing else to believe but evolution. 

 

If we were to observe God as a legitimate scientific fact, evolution is not the only possible interpretation of the data anymore. Suddenly creationism is a very likely possibility.  Our interpretation of the data could shift in light of the newly discovered variable of God.  Science will not play that game though, but I am surprised that a theist won't leave the door cracked. 

 

If we only accepted the popular scientific understanding, we would still be stuck in the dark ages.  The fact that lots of scientists believe something does not demonstrate that it is true, nor would it pass as scientific evidence to support the claim.  That is not science my friend. 

 

 

You never answered my question about convergence.

 

"Convergent evolution is the independent appearance of the same trait in different lineages. Evolutionists assert that such traits are due to homologous DNA sequences that have arisen independently in unrelated organisms by random mutations and similar selective pressures. Futuyma defines convergent evolution as "the independent origin of a derived character state in two or more taxa".  In contrasts, creationists and intelligent design theorists attribute such homology to the Creator's repeated use of the same design features in different organisms.

 

Convergent evolution also begins to break down when examined in a specific context. One common issue is with bioluminescence, the design trait of being able to biologically generate light. Bioluminescence requires hundreds of unlikely genetic mutations, yet has emerged more than thirty different times throughout natural history. The chance of this occurring due to evolution of any kind, let alone by random mutation, is widely considered to be very unlikely.

 

Even Darwin singled out bioluminescence as something his theory couldn't account for. Yet in the ocean it's commonplace," states a secular science magazine."

 

http://creationwiki.org/Convergent_evolution#cite_note-4

[ERayR]

Next time "noah" will have to build a space ship instead of a boat.

 

You never know, perhaps he already is.

[cursor]

You never know, perhaps he already is.

 

And I'm very nearly done with that task.

[ERayR]

And I'm very nearly done with that task.

 

Is my name still at the top of the boarding list?

[thesometimesaint]

 

Species is useful in language to communicate effectively, so that when I say chimp, you know what I am talking about.  But as a field of science it is crap.  The field of taxonomy is a mess of arbitrary boundaries of abstraction that nobody can agree on. 

 

 

 

"Confirm" is too strong a word.  Try "infer", it is more scientifically accurate language.  It is their interpretation of the data and nothing more.  

 

 

 

If you remove God from the picture, there is no other legitimate interpretation of the data.  So, in answer to your question, yes the evidence for evolution is strong.   Evolution is the only thing that makes sense in the absence of God.  Because scientists will not and cannot include God in the equation, all they have to work with is evolution.  God is not science.  So, the fact that most biologists believe in evolution says nothing to me.  There is nothing else to believe but evolution. 

 

If we were to observe God as a legitimate scientific fact, evolution is not the only possible interpretation of the data anymore. Suddenly creationism is a very likely possibility.  Our interpretation of the data could shift in light of the newly discovered variable of God.  Science will not play that game though, but I am surprised that a theist won't leave the door cracked. 

 

If we only accepted the popular scientific understanding, we would still be stuck in the dark ages.  The fact that lots of scientists believe something does not demonstrate that it is true, nor would it pass as scientific evidence to support the claim.  That is not science my friend. 

 

 

You never answered my question about convergence.

 

"Convergent evolution is the independent appearance of the same trait in different lineages. Evolutionists assert that such traits are due to homologous DNA sequences that have arisen independently in unrelated organisms by random mutations and similar selective pressures. Futuyma defines convergent evolution as "the independent origin of a derived character state in two or more taxa".  In contrasts, creationists and intelligent design theorists attribute such homology to the Creator's repeated use of the same design features in different organisms.

 

Convergent evolution also begins to break down when examined in a specific context. One common issue is with bioluminescence, the design trait of being able to biologically generate light. Bioluminescence requires hundreds of unlikely genetic mutations, yet has emerged more than thirty different times throughout natural history. The chance of this occurring due to evolution of any kind, let alone by random mutation, is widely considered to be very unlikely.

 

Even Darwin singled out bioluminescence as something his theory couldn't account for. Yet in the ocean it's commonplace," states a secular science magazine."

 

http://creationwiki.org/Convergent_evolution#cite_note-4

 

 

SEE http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2817186?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21105436739813

[toon]

 No doubt, I hear it is full of gas...childish giggle

 

 

Sometimes when you can't hear, it can still be deadly.

Edited December 11, 2014 by toon

[pogi]

SEE http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2817186?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21105436739813

 

I could only read a small portion of the introduction.  Didn't really see any good explanation.  What is the gist?

 

For bioluminescence to exist in just two different species (let alone many many different species) through convergence, two lines of descent would have to make exactly the same random mutations at many hundreds of different genetic steps.  The  odds of this happening is staggering. 

[pogi]

Sometimes when you can't hear, it can still be deadly.

 

Yes indeed...silent but violent is Uranus. 

[ERayR]

I could only read a small portion of the introduction.  Didn't really see any good explanation.  What is the gist?

 

For bioluminescence to exist in just two different species (let alone many many different species) through convergence, two lines of descent would have to make exactly the same random mutations at many hundreds of different genetic steps.  The  odds of this happening is staggering. 

 

Faith my friend just have faith.

[thesometimesaint]

I could only read a small portion of the introduction.  Didn't really see any good explanation.  What is the gist?

 

For bioluminescence to exist in just two different species (let alone many many different species) through convergence, two lines of descent would have to make exactly the same random mutations at many hundreds of different genetic steps.  The  odds of this happening is staggering. 

 

The gist is that Darwin accounted for the evolution of bioelectroluminescence in insects in his later works. Of course we now the mechanism for evolution it is the subtle changes in DNA over successive generations.

 

Evolution isn't about impossibly high odds numbers. The explanation of Evolution in its simplest form is the fact that those that reproduce win.

SEE

[pogi]

The gist is that Darwin accounted for the evolution of bioelectroluminescence in insects in his later works. 

 

Darwin never accounted for the "convergent evolution" of bioluminescence, he simply came up with hypothesis of why bioluminescence might be profitable for survival in insects.  But that is not what I am talking about. 

 

Evolution isn't about impossibly high odds numbers. The explanation of Evolution in its simplest form is the fact that those that reproduce win.

 

This is simplistic and is not taking convergence into account.  This is about one species evolving one specific trait.  In that case, you are right, it is not about odds.  But if there are two species of animals who evolve the same trait independent of the mother species who did not have that trait, then we are talking about the odds of the same random mutation/s occurring in two different species on many different levels, which has nothing to do with natural selection.  Nature would then have to select for those traits in both species AFTER the exact same random mutations took place.  Natural selection does not drive mutations or traits. Mutations are random.  It is not so strange that natural selection selected for bioluminescence once, what is strange is that the exact same random mutations occurred at hundreds of different biological steps in two or more separate species who did not inherit the trait from a common ancestor.  Those mutations are not driven by anything other than random chance, so yes, we are talking about odds.  For it to happen once is really cool and amazing, for it to happen twice -bizarre, for it to happen 30 plus times - completely inexplicable!

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

Edited December 11, 2014 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Darwin never accounted for the "convergent evolution" of bioluminescence, he simply came up with hypothesis of why bioluminescence might be profitable for survival in insects.  But that is not what I am talking about. 

 

 

This is not taking convergence into account.  This is about one species evolving one specific trait.  In that case, you are right, it is not about odds.  But if there are two species of animal who evolve the same trait independent of the mother species who did not have that trait, then we are talking about the odds of the same mutation occurring (or multiple mutations), which has nothing to do with natural selection.  Natural selection does not drive mutations or traits. Mutations are random.  It is not so strange that natural selection selected for bioluminescence, what is strange is that the exact same random mutations occurred at hundreds of different biological steps in two or more separate species who did not inherit the trait from a common ancestor.  Those mutations are not driven by anything other than random chance, so yes, we are talking about odds.  

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

 

Evolution accounts for the persistence of natural selection in random mutations in populations over generations. For examples of convergence in unrelated species  SEE http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679

Edited December 11, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[pogi]

Evolution accounts for the persistence of natural selection in random mutations in populations over generations. For examples of convergence in unrelated species  SEE http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679

 

Nice article!  Not so nice explanation. 

 

"The persistence of natural selection" has NOTHING to do with random mutations.  What accounts for the persistence of the exact same random mutations happening at multiple different levels among multiple different species?  Natural selection?  Hogwash - that implies that natural selection drives mutations. 

[pogi]

A few snippets:

 

"Surprisingly, in this groundbreaking book Dr. Lee Spetner offers compelling evidence that the data we have supports neither the theory nor the fact of evolution. Instead, the data actually supports an entirely different theory, which, if correct, will have far-reaching consequences for humanity and revolutionize scientific research and education.

 

"The feature of living matter that most demands explanation is that it is almost unimaginably complicated in directions that convey a powerful illusion of deliberate design." -- Richard Dawkins

 

In his previous book Not By Chance!, Dr. Lee Spetner, an MIT-trained physicist, presented compelling evidence that life on earth could not have developed through the random processes described by the theory of evolution. Prominent biologists and geneticists praised Dr. Spetner s book as one of the most serious challenges to evolutionary theory.

 

About 99% of Biologists agree that the evidence for Macro-Evolution is strong.

 

Can you name just one Biologists (since the year 2000) that stop believing in macro- evolution?  

There is none, the reason is because Biologists understand the evidence. 

 

What was that you were saying freethinker?  Are you truly a "free thinker" or do you just follow the popular crowd?

 

Back to the article:

 

I"n this groundbreaking new book, Dr. Spetner examines the latest scientific studies to demonstrate that neither the so-called "fact" of evolution -- that all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms different from themselves -- nor the theory of evolution -- the mechanism offered to explain how the fact came about -- are supported by the data. Over a century and a half of scientific research has not produced the support necessary to substantiate either of these evolutionist claims."

http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Revolution-Thinking-Rethinking/dp/1607631555

 

 

"They [the researchers] chose to work with the Hawaiian bobtail squid (Euprymna scolopes) and the swordtip squid (Uroteuthis edulis), a Japanese species used for sushi. These distantly related species are two of five genera known to have bioluminescent organs called photophores. The photophores contain symbiotic, light-emitting bacteria, and the squid are capable of controlling the aperture of their organ to modulate how much light is produced.

 

The scientists wanted to know how similar the two species' photophores are in terms of their genetic makeup. To find the answer, they sequenced all of the genes expressed in these light organs, something that could not be done using older sequencing technology.

"They are much more similar than we expected in terms of their genetic makeup," Oakley said. "Usually when two complicated organs evolve separately we would expect them to take very different evolutionary paths to arrive where they are today. The unexpectedly similar genetic makeup demonstrates that these two squid species took very similar paths to evolve these traits.

More specifically, the researchers demonstrated that bioluminescent organs originated repeatedly during squid evolution and then showed that the global gene expression profiles (transcriptomes) underlying those organs are strikingly -- even predictably -- similar.

 

But what are the odds that the same complex trait would evolve multiple times -- and develop similar genetic mechanisms convergently? UC Santa Barbara professor Todd Oakley explains:

The probability of complex organs evolving multiple times with similar trajectories should be vanishingly small, noted Oakley. Yet the team's novel bioinformatic approaches indicate the evolution of convergent phenotypes is associated with the convergent expression of thousands of genes.

So apparently the improbable happened over and over, and over and over, and over and over again -- thousands of times. Their reaction? As the technical paper in PNAS puts it, "surprise":

Surprisingly ... the overall gene expression distance between photophores is indistinguishable from the distance between expression levels of any homologous organ of the two species, on average. ... Nonmetric multidimensional scaling of the 36 libraries revealed surprisingly close clustering not only within homologous tissue types but also within nonhomologous photophores ... This origin of a photophore by amalgamation may have occurred at least two times during the history of squid in surprisingly similar ways, leading to predictable similarity in gene expression. ... convergent photophores is surprising because of the expectation for convergent traits to evolve by distinct genetic mechanisms. The finding of widespread coincident changes in convergent photophores indicates that transcriptome evolution in complex novelties may be more predictable than previously suspected."

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/surprise_surpri090611.html

Edited December 11, 2014 by pogi

[Calm]

Nice article! Not so nice explanation.

"The persistence of natural selection" has NOTHING to do with random mutations. What accounts for the persistence of the exact same random mutations happening at multiple different levels among multiple different species? Natural selection? Hogwash - that implies that natural selection drives mutations.

I don't think that is what the article is stating.

Natural selection is about which mutations survive, not which occur in the first place. Natural selection "drives" the survival of a mutation by having others of the species lacking the mutation being less likely to live long enough to reproduce or have offspring that has offspring etc (whether because it is inherently dysfunctional or in comparison to the mutation not as good at avoidance so more likely to be on the dinner plate).

If mutation is advantageous for one species, it is likely advantageous for another one that has the same need for a particular ability to survive to reproduce.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point though.

Edited December 11, 2014 by calmoriah

[pogi]

I don't think that is what the article is stating.

Natural selection is about which mutations survive, not which occur in the first place. Natural selection "drives" the survival of a mutation by having others of the species lacking the mutation being less likely to live long enough to reproduce or have offspring that has offspring etc (whether because it is inherently dysfunctional or in comparison to the mutation not as good at avoidance so more likely to be on the dinner plate).

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point though.

 

Natural selection can explain the trait in one species.  It does "drive" the "survival" of that trait in one species only after the random mutation/s takes place.  It does not, and cannot however "drive" the same random mutations in other species.  Nothing, according to the theory of evolution, "drives" random mutations.  That would be oxymoronic in that those mutations would no longer be random if they were driven by external forces towards a certain survival trait.  Natural selection cannot therefore account for convergence.  It is a game of odds, and the odds are stacked insurmountably against the phenomenon.

 

Here is what the article says:

He says that convergence — the evolution of similar genetic sequences — is a strong indication that natural selection does indeed favor these sequences.

 

I agree with that, but it in no way explains how those common mutations which led to those sequences occurred between multiple species in the first place.

 

Does that make sense? 

Edited December 11, 2014 by pogi

[Calm]

Yes, but I would disagree depending on how often mutations occur.

A useful mutation is more likely to survive no matter what species it appears in (if it is useful to that species...many species have the same needs for survival, good abilities to locate prey or predator, ability to avoid or capture, etc.)

Why wouldn't the same sort of mutation occur in multiple species? I assume given the mechanics there are only a limited number of mutations and some, though random in timing, wouldn't be random in occurrence...a gene may be more likely to mutate one way than another...it is just when the mutation occurs that is random.

I am not a biologist so this is just speculation for me, but given chemistry and physics are involved and there are a limited number of energy states and thus combinations of elements and that some combinations occur at much higher frequency than others, it seems likely to me that there are certain mutations that are more likely to occur than others...and if they were beneficial mutations natural selection would result in the survival rate of the mutation being higher than the lack of the mutation, even in multiple species (since we are all made up of the same basic chemistry and operate based on the same physical laws).

Edited December 11, 2014 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Nice article!  Not so nice explanation. 

 

"The persistence of natural selection" has NOTHING to do with random mutations.  What accounts for the persistence of the exact same random mutations happening at multiple different levels among multiple different species?  Natural selection?  Hogwash - that implies that natural selection drives mutations. 

 

I don't know about nice or not when it comes to science. The same process that drives our sun will someday mean that it will finally expand and if life still exists on this planet at that time. It will be no more. The same process that keeps you and me live means that other life forms must die.

 

No; it is a given fact that its persistence is hard evidence for evolution. Convergence in multiple unrelated species is hard evidence for the process of natural selection in evolution.

Edited December 11, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

Species is useful in language to communicate effectively, so that when I say chimp, you know what I am talking about.  But as a field of science it is crap.  The field of taxonomy is a mess of arbitrary boundaries of abstraction that nobody can agree on. 

 

But you used the word species when talking about science. How do you define the word species? You shouldn't use a word without having a useful definition for it.  

 

 

"Confirm" is too strong a word.  Try "infer", it is more scientifically accurate language.  It is their interpretation of the data and nothing more.  

 

DNA can tell you who is related to you, DNA is useful in court, DNA evidence tells us that the whale and the hippopotamus are closely related.

The Whale is closer related to the hippo than it is to Fish and seals.

 

What a coincidence that the whale and the have other unique similarities, for example, they are among the very few mammals that have internal testes. 

 

 

 

If you remove God from the picture, there is no other legitimate interpretation of the data.  So, in answer to your question, yes the evidence for evolution is strong.   Evolution is the only thing that makes sense in the absence of God.  Because scientists will not and cannot include God in the equation

 

 

There are many Biologists that believe God is involved in Evolution. There are other scientists that believe in intelligent design and Macro-Evolution, for example intelligent design biologist Mike Behe believes that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Mike Behe believes in Evolution, but he rejects Darwinism. 

 

 

Mutations are random.

 

Yes, mutations are random in our perspective. Evolutionist Ken Miller has an interesting idea. 

 

"The quantum physics of the 20th century falsifies this deterministic view of the universe. It does not disprove the absentee God of the Deists, but it does allow the possibility that God plays a role at the sub-atomic level of reality, influencing events without being obvious to humans operating at the macro-level. Ken Miller builds upon the indeterminacy of the quantum reality of the physical sciences to develop his Theist theology of an involved deity." 

https://darwinwatch.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/ken-miller%E2%80%99s-near-perfect-%E2%80%9Cfinding-darwin%E2%80%99s-god%E2%80%9D/

Edited December 11, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[pogi]

But you used the word species when talking about science. How do you define the word species? You shouldn't use a word without having a useful definition for it.  

 

 

My apologies then, what would you like me to use in its place?  We all kind of know what it means, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty, there are no nice, clear delineated boundaries. 

 

DNA can tell you who is related to you, DNA is useful in court, DNA evidence tells us that the whale and the hippopotamus are closely related.

The Whale is closer related to the hippo than it is to Fish and seals.

 

 

 

One last attempt then I give up.  Any inference that we make based on the evidence is only an inference.  DNA evidence is always based on probabilities.  DNA can suggest who is related to you based on probabilities because we can observe how population genetics works form one generation to another.  We cannot make such observations from one species to another so those probabilities of relation are complete inferences based on huge assumptions that are not observable.  If you want to play the science game, you have to use science language and laws.  Science is not certainty.  Any conclusion we make is an inference and interpretation of the data and does not "prove" anything with certainty. 

 

There are many Biologists that believe God is involved in Evolution. There are other scientists that believe in intelligent design and Macro-Evolution, for example intelligent design biologist Mike Behe believes that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Mike Behe believes in Evolution, but he rejects Darwinism. 

 

Yes, mutations are random in our perspective. Evolutionist Ken Miller has an interesting idea. 

 

"The quantum physics of the 20th century falsifies this deterministic view of the universe. It does not disprove the absentee God of the Deists, but it does allow the possibility that God plays a role at the sub-atomic level of reality, influencing events without being obvious to humans operating at the macro-level. Ken Miller builds upon the indeterminacy of the quantum reality of the physical sciences to develop his Theist theology of an involved deity." 

 

 

That's great but it flies in the face of the theory of evolution.  You cannot have it both ways, either it is guided or it is random, it cannot be both. 

[pogi]

Convergence in multiple unrelated species is hard evidence for the process of natural selection in evolution.

 

Yes, but you sill are not able to explain the improbable odds of convergence.  Natural selection is the result, not the cause of mutation.