Are mutations a source of genetic variation?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Here is a question from the book SAT II Success Biology E/M (where the SAT is the exam taken by the American high school students):




Which of the following statements is true about mutations?

(A) Rates
tend to be very high in most populations.

(B) generally lethal

(C)
irreversible

(D) Only certain gene locations are affected.

(E) source
of genetic variation




In my opinion, we can definitely eliminate A, B, and D.

Then, I struggle between C and E since I think mutations are definitely a source of genetic variation but are as well generally irreversible (I've found evidence on different websites, including this http://hawaiireedlab.com/wpress/?p=154 where the author writes that only some mutations are reversible).

In the end, I think I should have probably gone with E because C can be seen as having some exceptions.

Then, here is the book explanation for this question:




The correct answer is (C). These recent conclusions about
mutations—recall that Darwin did not know of mutations—are all the
reverse of those listed in the choices, with the exception of choice
(C), the correct answer. Rates, in fact, tend to be below in
populations, mutations are generally not lethal, any gene location can
be affected, and they are felt to be the source of genetic variation.
Darwin felt over-production of offspring was the source of potential
variation.




The answer is C here. However, I didn't particularly understand why E wasn't considered a correct answer.

Could you please explain why C, and not E, is correct?










share|improve this question

























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    Here is a question from the book SAT II Success Biology E/M (where the SAT is the exam taken by the American high school students):




    Which of the following statements is true about mutations?

    (A) Rates
    tend to be very high in most populations.

    (B) generally lethal

    (C)
    irreversible

    (D) Only certain gene locations are affected.

    (E) source
    of genetic variation




    In my opinion, we can definitely eliminate A, B, and D.

    Then, I struggle between C and E since I think mutations are definitely a source of genetic variation but are as well generally irreversible (I've found evidence on different websites, including this http://hawaiireedlab.com/wpress/?p=154 where the author writes that only some mutations are reversible).

    In the end, I think I should have probably gone with E because C can be seen as having some exceptions.

    Then, here is the book explanation for this question:




    The correct answer is (C). These recent conclusions about
    mutations—recall that Darwin did not know of mutations—are all the
    reverse of those listed in the choices, with the exception of choice
    (C), the correct answer. Rates, in fact, tend to be below in
    populations, mutations are generally not lethal, any gene location can
    be affected, and they are felt to be the source of genetic variation.
    Darwin felt over-production of offspring was the source of potential
    variation.




    The answer is C here. However, I didn't particularly understand why E wasn't considered a correct answer.

    Could you please explain why C, and not E, is correct?










    share|improve this question























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      Here is a question from the book SAT II Success Biology E/M (where the SAT is the exam taken by the American high school students):




      Which of the following statements is true about mutations?

      (A) Rates
      tend to be very high in most populations.

      (B) generally lethal

      (C)
      irreversible

      (D) Only certain gene locations are affected.

      (E) source
      of genetic variation




      In my opinion, we can definitely eliminate A, B, and D.

      Then, I struggle between C and E since I think mutations are definitely a source of genetic variation but are as well generally irreversible (I've found evidence on different websites, including this http://hawaiireedlab.com/wpress/?p=154 where the author writes that only some mutations are reversible).

      In the end, I think I should have probably gone with E because C can be seen as having some exceptions.

      Then, here is the book explanation for this question:




      The correct answer is (C). These recent conclusions about
      mutations—recall that Darwin did not know of mutations—are all the
      reverse of those listed in the choices, with the exception of choice
      (C), the correct answer. Rates, in fact, tend to be below in
      populations, mutations are generally not lethal, any gene location can
      be affected, and they are felt to be the source of genetic variation.
      Darwin felt over-production of offspring was the source of potential
      variation.




      The answer is C here. However, I didn't particularly understand why E wasn't considered a correct answer.

      Could you please explain why C, and not E, is correct?










      share|improve this question













      Here is a question from the book SAT II Success Biology E/M (where the SAT is the exam taken by the American high school students):




      Which of the following statements is true about mutations?

      (A) Rates
      tend to be very high in most populations.

      (B) generally lethal

      (C)
      irreversible

      (D) Only certain gene locations are affected.

      (E) source
      of genetic variation




      In my opinion, we can definitely eliminate A, B, and D.

      Then, I struggle between C and E since I think mutations are definitely a source of genetic variation but are as well generally irreversible (I've found evidence on different websites, including this http://hawaiireedlab.com/wpress/?p=154 where the author writes that only some mutations are reversible).

      In the end, I think I should have probably gone with E because C can be seen as having some exceptions.

      Then, here is the book explanation for this question:




      The correct answer is (C). These recent conclusions about
      mutations—recall that Darwin did not know of mutations—are all the
      reverse of those listed in the choices, with the exception of choice
      (C), the correct answer. Rates, in fact, tend to be below in
      populations, mutations are generally not lethal, any gene location can
      be affected, and they are felt to be the source of genetic variation.
      Darwin felt over-production of offspring was the source of potential
      variation.




      The answer is C here. However, I didn't particularly understand why E wasn't considered a correct answer.

      Could you please explain why C, and not E, is correct?







      genetics evolution molecular-genetics population-genetics mutations






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 3 hours ago









      Elena Kolumba

      153




      153




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Going through the possible answers




          (A) Rates tend to be very high in most populations.




          This is a very unclear statement. What does "high" mean? In humans, the average mutation rate per nucleotide is of the order of $10^-8$ (Rahbari et al., 2016). Whether someone wants to call that high or low is up to this person original intuition.




          (B) generally lethal




          No, that's wrong (Robert et al., 2018)




          (C) irreversible




          It is a little unclear if by "irreversible" they mean that the function of the gene (or any other functional element) cannot be restored or whether a specific mutation cannot be exactly undo by a future mutation. In both cases, however, it would be wrong!



          Mutations that restore the function of a gene (or any other genomic functional element) are called reverse mutations (aka. suppressor mutations; I personally don't know of any difference between the concepts of reverse mutation and suppressor mutation). Most reverse mutations are likely to act via a second mutation that restore the function of the gene rather than undoing the previous mutation. It does not mean however that it is impossible a mutation that perfectly undo a mutation is impossible. Consider a substitution inverting a A into a T. A reverse mutation could do just the opposite.




          (D) Only certain gene locations are affected.




          Mutation rate vary throughout the genome but all of the genome is subject to some non-zero mutation rate.




          (E) source of genetic variation




          Yes, mutations are the ultimate source of genetic variation in populations, while genetic drift and directional selection removes variation.



          As other users have highlighted in their answers, many mutations (incl. synonymous mutations but not only and soma mutations) do not bring up any the underlying genetic variance of phenotypic traits. These details are however mainly irrelevant though. What matters is that it still remain true that (some) mutations increase genetic variance.



          We could also add the complication as to wonder whether by "genetic variance", they meant "genetic variance underlying phenotypic variance" (which is its standard usage) or "genetic variance where one allele is given an arbitrary value and another another (problem arsing for loci with more than 2 alleles segregating). More information about the terminology and the math when it comes to quantifying genetic variance in the post Why is a heritability coefficient not an index of how “genetic” something is?



          What I would have answered




          The correct answer is (C). These recent conclusions about mutations—recall that Darwin did not know of mutations—are all the reverse of those listed in the choices, with the exception of choice (C), the correct answer. Rates, in fact, tend to be below in populations, mutations are generally not lethal, any gene location can be affected, and they are felt to be the source of genetic variation. Darwin felt over-production of offspring was the source of potential variation.




          I disagree. To me, B and D are wrong, A is unclear, C is slightly unclear but wrong in both interpretations I can think of and E is correct. I would have answered E.



          About the justification given




          Rates, in fact, tend to be below in populations [..]




          This piece of sentence is not even grammatically correct. Below what? It highlights that A is unclear.




          they are felt to be the source of genetic variation




          The term "felt" is poorly chosen here IMO, but this piece of sentence seems to rather give credit to answer E. I think, whoever wrote this answer mistakenly wrote C instead of E




          Darwin felt over-production of offspring was the source of potential variation.




          Really, who cares about Darwin thoughts on the subject here?! But in any case, this sounds like a misrepresentation of Darwin's ideas. More info can be found in Charlesworth and Charlesworth (2009) and also maybe this post






          share|improve this answer





























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            It depends. A mutation in somatic cells is not a source of genetic variation because they are not inherited by offspring. But mutations in the sex cells is a source of variation. Your answer key does not appear to be sure of the correct answer because it says the reverse of every answer but C is true of mutations but then agrees with answer E. Also unless part of the question is missing, what Darwin thought is not really relevant. Also more offspring means more chances offspring carrying a mutation.






            share|improve this answer




















            • Yes, the part about Darwin was confusing to me as well. The question or answer choices did not include any parts about his work, so I didn't particularly understand why his name appeared in the explanation...
              – Elena Kolumba
              17 mins ago

















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            mutations form part of the list responsible for genetic variation hence phenotypic variation. by definition mutation are alteration of genetic code and unpredicted changes in sequence of nucleotides in nucleic acids(level).



            so yes mutations are responsible of variation but not all the time and not all mutations actually results in variation. silent mutations are neither harmful nor beneficial they do not improve organisms by any means, on the other hand nonsense mutations are readily harmful they can result in death.



            other sources of variation include:
            1. independent assortment of chromosomes(meiotic division), as per Mandel's first law of independent assortment.
            2. crossing over of bivelents
            3. environmental changes, which subsequently lead to beneficial mutations.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            john is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.

















              Your Answer




              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              );
              );
              , "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "375"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: false,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













               

              draft saved


              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbiology.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f78135%2fare-mutations-a-source-of-genetic-variation%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest






























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes








              up vote
              1
              down vote



              accepted










              Going through the possible answers




              (A) Rates tend to be very high in most populations.




              This is a very unclear statement. What does "high" mean? In humans, the average mutation rate per nucleotide is of the order of $10^-8$ (Rahbari et al., 2016). Whether someone wants to call that high or low is up to this person original intuition.




              (B) generally lethal




              No, that's wrong (Robert et al., 2018)




              (C) irreversible




              It is a little unclear if by "irreversible" they mean that the function of the gene (or any other functional element) cannot be restored or whether a specific mutation cannot be exactly undo by a future mutation. In both cases, however, it would be wrong!



              Mutations that restore the function of a gene (or any other genomic functional element) are called reverse mutations (aka. suppressor mutations; I personally don't know of any difference between the concepts of reverse mutation and suppressor mutation). Most reverse mutations are likely to act via a second mutation that restore the function of the gene rather than undoing the previous mutation. It does not mean however that it is impossible a mutation that perfectly undo a mutation is impossible. Consider a substitution inverting a A into a T. A reverse mutation could do just the opposite.




              (D) Only certain gene locations are affected.




              Mutation rate vary throughout the genome but all of the genome is subject to some non-zero mutation rate.




              (E) source of genetic variation




              Yes, mutations are the ultimate source of genetic variation in populations, while genetic drift and directional selection removes variation.



              As other users have highlighted in their answers, many mutations (incl. synonymous mutations but not only and soma mutations) do not bring up any the underlying genetic variance of phenotypic traits. These details are however mainly irrelevant though. What matters is that it still remain true that (some) mutations increase genetic variance.



              We could also add the complication as to wonder whether by "genetic variance", they meant "genetic variance underlying phenotypic variance" (which is its standard usage) or "genetic variance where one allele is given an arbitrary value and another another (problem arsing for loci with more than 2 alleles segregating). More information about the terminology and the math when it comes to quantifying genetic variance in the post Why is a heritability coefficient not an index of how “genetic” something is?



              What I would have answered




              The correct answer is (C). These recent conclusions about mutations—recall that Darwin did not know of mutations—are all the reverse of those listed in the choices, with the exception of choice (C), the correct answer. Rates, in fact, tend to be below in populations, mutations are generally not lethal, any gene location can be affected, and they are felt to be the source of genetic variation. Darwin felt over-production of offspring was the source of potential variation.




              I disagree. To me, B and D are wrong, A is unclear, C is slightly unclear but wrong in both interpretations I can think of and E is correct. I would have answered E.



              About the justification given




              Rates, in fact, tend to be below in populations [..]




              This piece of sentence is not even grammatically correct. Below what? It highlights that A is unclear.




              they are felt to be the source of genetic variation




              The term "felt" is poorly chosen here IMO, but this piece of sentence seems to rather give credit to answer E. I think, whoever wrote this answer mistakenly wrote C instead of E




              Darwin felt over-production of offspring was the source of potential variation.




              Really, who cares about Darwin thoughts on the subject here?! But in any case, this sounds like a misrepresentation of Darwin's ideas. More info can be found in Charlesworth and Charlesworth (2009) and also maybe this post






              share|improve this answer


























                up vote
                1
                down vote



                accepted










                Going through the possible answers




                (A) Rates tend to be very high in most populations.




                This is a very unclear statement. What does "high" mean? In humans, the average mutation rate per nucleotide is of the order of $10^-8$ (Rahbari et al., 2016). Whether someone wants to call that high or low is up to this person original intuition.




                (B) generally lethal




                No, that's wrong (Robert et al., 2018)




                (C) irreversible




                It is a little unclear if by "irreversible" they mean that the function of the gene (or any other functional element) cannot be restored or whether a specific mutation cannot be exactly undo by a future mutation. In both cases, however, it would be wrong!



                Mutations that restore the function of a gene (or any other genomic functional element) are called reverse mutations (aka. suppressor mutations; I personally don't know of any difference between the concepts of reverse mutation and suppressor mutation). Most reverse mutations are likely to act via a second mutation that restore the function of the gene rather than undoing the previous mutation. It does not mean however that it is impossible a mutation that perfectly undo a mutation is impossible. Consider a substitution inverting a A into a T. A reverse mutation could do just the opposite.




                (D) Only certain gene locations are affected.




                Mutation rate vary throughout the genome but all of the genome is subject to some non-zero mutation rate.




                (E) source of genetic variation




                Yes, mutations are the ultimate source of genetic variation in populations, while genetic drift and directional selection removes variation.



                As other users have highlighted in their answers, many mutations (incl. synonymous mutations but not only and soma mutations) do not bring up any the underlying genetic variance of phenotypic traits. These details are however mainly irrelevant though. What matters is that it still remain true that (some) mutations increase genetic variance.



                We could also add the complication as to wonder whether by "genetic variance", they meant "genetic variance underlying phenotypic variance" (which is its standard usage) or "genetic variance where one allele is given an arbitrary value and another another (problem arsing for loci with more than 2 alleles segregating). More information about the terminology and the math when it comes to quantifying genetic variance in the post Why is a heritability coefficient not an index of how “genetic” something is?



                What I would have answered




                The correct answer is (C). These recent conclusions about mutations—recall that Darwin did not know of mutations—are all the reverse of those listed in the choices, with the exception of choice (C), the correct answer. Rates, in fact, tend to be below in populations, mutations are generally not lethal, any gene location can be affected, and they are felt to be the source of genetic variation. Darwin felt over-production of offspring was the source of potential variation.




                I disagree. To me, B and D are wrong, A is unclear, C is slightly unclear but wrong in both interpretations I can think of and E is correct. I would have answered E.



                About the justification given




                Rates, in fact, tend to be below in populations [..]




                This piece of sentence is not even grammatically correct. Below what? It highlights that A is unclear.




                they are felt to be the source of genetic variation




                The term "felt" is poorly chosen here IMO, but this piece of sentence seems to rather give credit to answer E. I think, whoever wrote this answer mistakenly wrote C instead of E




                Darwin felt over-production of offspring was the source of potential variation.




                Really, who cares about Darwin thoughts on the subject here?! But in any case, this sounds like a misrepresentation of Darwin's ideas. More info can be found in Charlesworth and Charlesworth (2009) and also maybe this post






                share|improve this answer
























                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote



                  accepted







                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote



                  accepted






                  Going through the possible answers




                  (A) Rates tend to be very high in most populations.




                  This is a very unclear statement. What does "high" mean? In humans, the average mutation rate per nucleotide is of the order of $10^-8$ (Rahbari et al., 2016). Whether someone wants to call that high or low is up to this person original intuition.




                  (B) generally lethal




                  No, that's wrong (Robert et al., 2018)




                  (C) irreversible




                  It is a little unclear if by "irreversible" they mean that the function of the gene (or any other functional element) cannot be restored or whether a specific mutation cannot be exactly undo by a future mutation. In both cases, however, it would be wrong!



                  Mutations that restore the function of a gene (or any other genomic functional element) are called reverse mutations (aka. suppressor mutations; I personally don't know of any difference between the concepts of reverse mutation and suppressor mutation). Most reverse mutations are likely to act via a second mutation that restore the function of the gene rather than undoing the previous mutation. It does not mean however that it is impossible a mutation that perfectly undo a mutation is impossible. Consider a substitution inverting a A into a T. A reverse mutation could do just the opposite.




                  (D) Only certain gene locations are affected.




                  Mutation rate vary throughout the genome but all of the genome is subject to some non-zero mutation rate.




                  (E) source of genetic variation




                  Yes, mutations are the ultimate source of genetic variation in populations, while genetic drift and directional selection removes variation.



                  As other users have highlighted in their answers, many mutations (incl. synonymous mutations but not only and soma mutations) do not bring up any the underlying genetic variance of phenotypic traits. These details are however mainly irrelevant though. What matters is that it still remain true that (some) mutations increase genetic variance.



                  We could also add the complication as to wonder whether by "genetic variance", they meant "genetic variance underlying phenotypic variance" (which is its standard usage) or "genetic variance where one allele is given an arbitrary value and another another (problem arsing for loci with more than 2 alleles segregating). More information about the terminology and the math when it comes to quantifying genetic variance in the post Why is a heritability coefficient not an index of how “genetic” something is?



                  What I would have answered




                  The correct answer is (C). These recent conclusions about mutations—recall that Darwin did not know of mutations—are all the reverse of those listed in the choices, with the exception of choice (C), the correct answer. Rates, in fact, tend to be below in populations, mutations are generally not lethal, any gene location can be affected, and they are felt to be the source of genetic variation. Darwin felt over-production of offspring was the source of potential variation.




                  I disagree. To me, B and D are wrong, A is unclear, C is slightly unclear but wrong in both interpretations I can think of and E is correct. I would have answered E.



                  About the justification given




                  Rates, in fact, tend to be below in populations [..]




                  This piece of sentence is not even grammatically correct. Below what? It highlights that A is unclear.




                  they are felt to be the source of genetic variation




                  The term "felt" is poorly chosen here IMO, but this piece of sentence seems to rather give credit to answer E. I think, whoever wrote this answer mistakenly wrote C instead of E




                  Darwin felt over-production of offspring was the source of potential variation.




                  Really, who cares about Darwin thoughts on the subject here?! But in any case, this sounds like a misrepresentation of Darwin's ideas. More info can be found in Charlesworth and Charlesworth (2009) and also maybe this post






                  share|improve this answer














                  Going through the possible answers




                  (A) Rates tend to be very high in most populations.




                  This is a very unclear statement. What does "high" mean? In humans, the average mutation rate per nucleotide is of the order of $10^-8$ (Rahbari et al., 2016). Whether someone wants to call that high or low is up to this person original intuition.




                  (B) generally lethal




                  No, that's wrong (Robert et al., 2018)




                  (C) irreversible




                  It is a little unclear if by "irreversible" they mean that the function of the gene (or any other functional element) cannot be restored or whether a specific mutation cannot be exactly undo by a future mutation. In both cases, however, it would be wrong!



                  Mutations that restore the function of a gene (or any other genomic functional element) are called reverse mutations (aka. suppressor mutations; I personally don't know of any difference between the concepts of reverse mutation and suppressor mutation). Most reverse mutations are likely to act via a second mutation that restore the function of the gene rather than undoing the previous mutation. It does not mean however that it is impossible a mutation that perfectly undo a mutation is impossible. Consider a substitution inverting a A into a T. A reverse mutation could do just the opposite.




                  (D) Only certain gene locations are affected.




                  Mutation rate vary throughout the genome but all of the genome is subject to some non-zero mutation rate.




                  (E) source of genetic variation




                  Yes, mutations are the ultimate source of genetic variation in populations, while genetic drift and directional selection removes variation.



                  As other users have highlighted in their answers, many mutations (incl. synonymous mutations but not only and soma mutations) do not bring up any the underlying genetic variance of phenotypic traits. These details are however mainly irrelevant though. What matters is that it still remain true that (some) mutations increase genetic variance.



                  We could also add the complication as to wonder whether by "genetic variance", they meant "genetic variance underlying phenotypic variance" (which is its standard usage) or "genetic variance where one allele is given an arbitrary value and another another (problem arsing for loci with more than 2 alleles segregating). More information about the terminology and the math when it comes to quantifying genetic variance in the post Why is a heritability coefficient not an index of how “genetic” something is?



                  What I would have answered




                  The correct answer is (C). These recent conclusions about mutations—recall that Darwin did not know of mutations—are all the reverse of those listed in the choices, with the exception of choice (C), the correct answer. Rates, in fact, tend to be below in populations, mutations are generally not lethal, any gene location can be affected, and they are felt to be the source of genetic variation. Darwin felt over-production of offspring was the source of potential variation.




                  I disagree. To me, B and D are wrong, A is unclear, C is slightly unclear but wrong in both interpretations I can think of and E is correct. I would have answered E.



                  About the justification given




                  Rates, in fact, tend to be below in populations [..]




                  This piece of sentence is not even grammatically correct. Below what? It highlights that A is unclear.




                  they are felt to be the source of genetic variation




                  The term "felt" is poorly chosen here IMO, but this piece of sentence seems to rather give credit to answer E. I think, whoever wrote this answer mistakenly wrote C instead of E




                  Darwin felt over-production of offspring was the source of potential variation.




                  Really, who cares about Darwin thoughts on the subject here?! But in any case, this sounds like a misrepresentation of Darwin's ideas. More info can be found in Charlesworth and Charlesworth (2009) and also maybe this post







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 2 hours ago

























                  answered 2 hours ago









                  Remi.b

                  55.4k6100179




                  55.4k6100179




















                      up vote
                      1
                      down vote













                      It depends. A mutation in somatic cells is not a source of genetic variation because they are not inherited by offspring. But mutations in the sex cells is a source of variation. Your answer key does not appear to be sure of the correct answer because it says the reverse of every answer but C is true of mutations but then agrees with answer E. Also unless part of the question is missing, what Darwin thought is not really relevant. Also more offspring means more chances offspring carrying a mutation.






                      share|improve this answer




















                      • Yes, the part about Darwin was confusing to me as well. The question or answer choices did not include any parts about his work, so I didn't particularly understand why his name appeared in the explanation...
                        – Elena Kolumba
                        17 mins ago














                      up vote
                      1
                      down vote













                      It depends. A mutation in somatic cells is not a source of genetic variation because they are not inherited by offspring. But mutations in the sex cells is a source of variation. Your answer key does not appear to be sure of the correct answer because it says the reverse of every answer but C is true of mutations but then agrees with answer E. Also unless part of the question is missing, what Darwin thought is not really relevant. Also more offspring means more chances offspring carrying a mutation.






                      share|improve this answer




















                      • Yes, the part about Darwin was confusing to me as well. The question or answer choices did not include any parts about his work, so I didn't particularly understand why his name appeared in the explanation...
                        – Elena Kolumba
                        17 mins ago












                      up vote
                      1
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      1
                      down vote









                      It depends. A mutation in somatic cells is not a source of genetic variation because they are not inherited by offspring. But mutations in the sex cells is a source of variation. Your answer key does not appear to be sure of the correct answer because it says the reverse of every answer but C is true of mutations but then agrees with answer E. Also unless part of the question is missing, what Darwin thought is not really relevant. Also more offspring means more chances offspring carrying a mutation.






                      share|improve this answer












                      It depends. A mutation in somatic cells is not a source of genetic variation because they are not inherited by offspring. But mutations in the sex cells is a source of variation. Your answer key does not appear to be sure of the correct answer because it says the reverse of every answer but C is true of mutations but then agrees with answer E. Also unless part of the question is missing, what Darwin thought is not really relevant. Also more offspring means more chances offspring carrying a mutation.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered 2 hours ago









                      Cell

                      30416




                      30416











                      • Yes, the part about Darwin was confusing to me as well. The question or answer choices did not include any parts about his work, so I didn't particularly understand why his name appeared in the explanation...
                        – Elena Kolumba
                        17 mins ago
















                      • Yes, the part about Darwin was confusing to me as well. The question or answer choices did not include any parts about his work, so I didn't particularly understand why his name appeared in the explanation...
                        – Elena Kolumba
                        17 mins ago















                      Yes, the part about Darwin was confusing to me as well. The question or answer choices did not include any parts about his work, so I didn't particularly understand why his name appeared in the explanation...
                      – Elena Kolumba
                      17 mins ago




                      Yes, the part about Darwin was confusing to me as well. The question or answer choices did not include any parts about his work, so I didn't particularly understand why his name appeared in the explanation...
                      – Elena Kolumba
                      17 mins ago










                      up vote
                      1
                      down vote













                      mutations form part of the list responsible for genetic variation hence phenotypic variation. by definition mutation are alteration of genetic code and unpredicted changes in sequence of nucleotides in nucleic acids(level).



                      so yes mutations are responsible of variation but not all the time and not all mutations actually results in variation. silent mutations are neither harmful nor beneficial they do not improve organisms by any means, on the other hand nonsense mutations are readily harmful they can result in death.



                      other sources of variation include:
                      1. independent assortment of chromosomes(meiotic division), as per Mandel's first law of independent assortment.
                      2. crossing over of bivelents
                      3. environmental changes, which subsequently lead to beneficial mutations.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      john is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                        up vote
                        1
                        down vote













                        mutations form part of the list responsible for genetic variation hence phenotypic variation. by definition mutation are alteration of genetic code and unpredicted changes in sequence of nucleotides in nucleic acids(level).



                        so yes mutations are responsible of variation but not all the time and not all mutations actually results in variation. silent mutations are neither harmful nor beneficial they do not improve organisms by any means, on the other hand nonsense mutations are readily harmful they can result in death.



                        other sources of variation include:
                        1. independent assortment of chromosomes(meiotic division), as per Mandel's first law of independent assortment.
                        2. crossing over of bivelents
                        3. environmental changes, which subsequently lead to beneficial mutations.






                        share|improve this answer








                        New contributor




                        john is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.



















                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote









                          mutations form part of the list responsible for genetic variation hence phenotypic variation. by definition mutation are alteration of genetic code and unpredicted changes in sequence of nucleotides in nucleic acids(level).



                          so yes mutations are responsible of variation but not all the time and not all mutations actually results in variation. silent mutations are neither harmful nor beneficial they do not improve organisms by any means, on the other hand nonsense mutations are readily harmful they can result in death.



                          other sources of variation include:
                          1. independent assortment of chromosomes(meiotic division), as per Mandel's first law of independent assortment.
                          2. crossing over of bivelents
                          3. environmental changes, which subsequently lead to beneficial mutations.






                          share|improve this answer








                          New contributor




                          john is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                          mutations form part of the list responsible for genetic variation hence phenotypic variation. by definition mutation are alteration of genetic code and unpredicted changes in sequence of nucleotides in nucleic acids(level).



                          so yes mutations are responsible of variation but not all the time and not all mutations actually results in variation. silent mutations are neither harmful nor beneficial they do not improve organisms by any means, on the other hand nonsense mutations are readily harmful they can result in death.



                          other sources of variation include:
                          1. independent assortment of chromosomes(meiotic division), as per Mandel's first law of independent assortment.
                          2. crossing over of bivelents
                          3. environmental changes, which subsequently lead to beneficial mutations.







                          share|improve this answer








                          New contributor




                          john is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer






                          New contributor




                          john is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                          answered 2 hours ago









                          john

                          112




                          112




                          New contributor




                          john is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.





                          New contributor





                          john is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






                          john is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.



























                               

                              draft saved


                              draft discarded















































                               


                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbiology.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f78135%2fare-mutations-a-source-of-genetic-variation%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest













































































                              Comments

                              Popular posts from this blog

                              What does second last employer means? [closed]

                              Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

                              One-line joke