Sentences with phrase «by the mutation of»

The most common form of SMA is caused by mutation of the SMN gene, and manifests over a wide range of severity affecting infants through adults.

An international research collaboration coordinated by Fellay has discovered the reason for some of these infections: they are caused by mutations of a gene that plays a part in recognising certain cold - inducing viruses.

The condition is caused by a mutation of the gene COL7A1, which contains the blueprint for the protein collagen VII.

Such changes could be due to gastric disease development or the consequence of long - term use of acid - suppressing drugs that cause changes to the stomach pH - levels, i.e. changes that contribute to more rapid adaptation by mutations of H. pylori.

This suggests that ATP7B and ATP7A play antagonistic roles in copper homeostasis, and that attenuation of copper accumulation by mutation of ATP7A could ameliorate symptoms of Wilson disease in humans.

This block is caused by mutations of the gene encoding the γc cytokine receptor subunit of interleukin - 2, -4, -7, -9, and -15 receptors, which participates in the delivery of growth, survival, and differentiation signals to early lymphoid progenitors.

• Combining stem cells with gene therapy, an international collaboration announced the success of a pilot study to treat X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD), a fatal brain disease caused by a mutation of the gene coding for the ALD protein.

«Historically, we have had trouble modeling human diseases caused by mutation of just one copy of a gene in mice, which impedes research on complex conditions and limits our discovery of therapeutics,» explained Srivastava, director of the Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease and senior author on the study.

I suffer from familial amyloid polyneuropathy, a disease triggered by a mutation of the TTR gene.

In a small percent of infected cats (5 to 10 percent), either by a mutation of the virus or by an aberration of the immune response, the infection progresses into clinical FIP.

Degenerative Myelopathy is an inherited neurologic disorder caused by a Mutation of the SOD1 gene known to be carried by Cavalier King Charles spaniels.

Toyota has been somewhat befuddled by this mutation of its Prius.

Not exact matches

Luxturna is the first of a crop of treatments that target diseases caused by mutations in specific genes, and thus is referred to by many as the first gene therapy in the U.S.

According to recent estimates, 55 % to 65 % of women who inherit a harmful BRCA 1 mutation will develop breast cancer by the age of 70.

But the presence of the gene mutation is by no means a death sentence.

Gross called the rate of return, discovered by Wharton professor Jeremy Siegel, a «historical freak, a mutation likely never to be seen again» in a «New Normal economy» in which GDP growth is «slowing significantly.»

Evolution in the population of encodings is simulated by means of evolutionary processes; selection, crossover and mutation.

If evolution is driven by random mutations, we can not be part of a divine plan.

I think cancer like so many diseases are a mutation of Gods creation, caused by sin.

The fossil record which shows millions of years of stable species, then an explosion of necessarily mutations, all occurring at the precise necessary time required for complex organisms to develop, and ALL escaping fossilization «the sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species — from their initial appearance until their extinction — has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation» — Wikipedia

so according to your logic a mutation occurred in not one but a number of these creatures and their offspring and with their «webbing» (not wings) not all of them fell out of the trees or cliffs to die and be eaten by predators?

June 19, 2013 — A Cornell University study offers further proof that the divergence of humans from chimpanzees some 4 million to 6 million years ago was profoundly influenced by mutations to DNA sequences that play roles in turning genes on and off.

So the real questions are: 1) how can there even be a universal understanding of «right» and «wrong» without a creator 2) how can purely random genetic mutations preserved by natural selection have resulted in the desire to do «right» even amongst those that do not believe in life after death?

On the other hand, perhaps by learning to avoid genetic deformities we may intervene just in time to keep from being wiped out by a tide of stress - induced or radiation - related mutations.

The authors conclude by raising what they consider to be «a broader ethical problem with OAR,» stating that this procedure amounts to nothing more than human cloning with the additional twist of introducing a genetic mutation» ominously concluding that a «combination of wrongs can not make the end result good.»

The change in allele frequency may arise by any number of mechanisms including the addition of a novel allele via mutation.

You laugh at the Supernatural, even though scientists have calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes to be estimated less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40, ooo power — But you find nothing wrong with believing that billions of years full of random mutations would result in the impossible.

The human eye is the (still evolving) product of evolution by genetic mutation and natura selection by the environment.

If recent evidence for Lamarckian inheritance (the inheritance of mutations induced by an organism in response to its immediate environment) holds up and is expanded, it would provide a way of showing not only the importance of self - determination and hybrid physical feelings in evolution, but also of how divinely rooted initial aims could be effective.

And contrary to your cited reference's claim of a loss of specificity, to the contrary, these duplicate genes were then refined by further mutation to make them better.

In it we can perhaps catch a glimpse, still in the marginal, conscious state, of individual, germinal heredity in process of formation: as though organic mutation at this stage took the form of a psychic invention contrived by the parents and transmitted by them.

We can prove natural selection by observing survival of mutations in bacteria.

And this is what he does here, very well, proceeding by discrete steps: the observable plasticity of plant and animal species, the verifiability of macro-evolution, the geological record of the earth's age, the fossil evidence (including the wealth of fossil remains of intermediate special forms), observable and experimental mutation, morphology, genetics, and so forth.

It's mere conjecture that a reptile's descendents morphed into a human being and all species of mammalia by way of millions of «random positive mutations», because it has no basis in real world biology, no basis in fact, and therefore, no basis in science.

«Junk DNA» was introduced in 1972 by geneticist Susumu Ohno who noted that the mutational load from harmful mutations placed an upper limit on the number of functional loci that could be expected given a typical mutation rate.

Most importantly, while I do agree that common descent is supported by the bulk of the evidence (although admittedly there are difficulties at higher phylogenetic levels), I certainly do not think we have any reason to suppose the process occurred by random mutation and natural selection, the position Prof. Arnhart attributes to me.

your video (apparently done by some high school kid) is self refuting, it's premise is that — mutations exist in a population, — drastic environmental change dramatically favors one set of mutations — this natural selection is then what results in «rapid change»

= > boy, good luck reconciling that with the fossil record which shows punctuated equilibrium: stasis for millions of years followed by a grand paroxysm of neccessarily interdependant mutations in a short period of time.

As for «chance mutations,» chance is the opposite of having a cause; something that happens by chance admits of no reason or purpose for its occurrence.

We should then expect either a condition of «no change» beyond simple elements, surviving very nicely as principles of intense energy, or else a riot of physical «mutations» having neither «survival value» nor any principle of control by «survival value», a Universe in which so stable and inelastic a thing as complex life could not survive.

Other interesting points, blonde, and blue eyes are caused again by absence of pigment or lesser pigment, the mutation that turns of pigment production in the iris which also causes blue eyes is the same mutation that can cause albinism.

It was by experiments of this kind that genes were identified and the process of gene mutation discovered.

@Chad «If you want to demonstrate that God is a myth, you need to answer how the universe came into being, how life was first created, and how all life forms as we know them today were achieved via a totally random series of genetic mutations and how that is in harmony with stasis in the fossil record» @hippypoet «I don't really care how we got here nor do I concern myself with the why either» @Chad «exactly» @hippypoet «See, I don't have to answer where, why, and by whom we are here because I don't need to» @Chad «exactly»

@Chad «If you want to demonstrate that God is a myth, you need to answer how the universe came into being, how life was first created, and how all life forms as we know them today were achieved via a totally random series of genetic mutations and how that is in harmony with stasis in the fossil record» @hippypoet «I don't really care how we got here nor do I concern myself with the why either» @Chad «exactly» See, I don't have to answer where, why, and by whom we are here because I don't need to.

For Ricoeur «the Christian fact is itself understood by effecting a mutation of meaning inside the ancient Scripture.

Evolution was not of major interest to most of these biologists, but insofar as they had a theory of it, it was a theory in terms of mutations of individual genes, carried by individual organisms and submitted to natural selection.

The three books — Science and the Modern World, Process and Reality, Adventures of Ideas — are an endeavor to express a way 0f understanding the nature of things, and to point out how that way of understanding is illustrated by a survey of the mutations of human experience.

You see evolution is defined as «change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.»

Bernal says that «genetics furnishes us with another quite independent means of modifying life through selective breeding and by the creation of mutations»; if individuals could be fashioned to specifications, who is to decide the formula for prefabricated man?

If, on the other hand, we define evolution in the Darwinian sense — as a process of random mutation and natural selection by which all living beings have arisen by chance from single - celled organisms over 100's of millions of years — we may not be on equally firm ground from a scientific perspective.