The post you replied to is one in which I mentioned genetic load and that a majority of the mutations are neutral. Do you disagree with either of those two principles, or are you just getting emotional at this point?
To clarify my position, I disagree with those things you say which are crap that you've made up. This is not an emotion, emotions are things like happiness, sadness, jealousy, etc.
By "in the way", I meant it will no longer be "available" to the organism as a source of useful information, like it was before it mutated into a neutral mutation.
You continue to show that you don't understand the basics of genetics.
Neutral does not mean non-functioning.
it serves no purpose and eventually could be thought of as deleterious because it will no longer help the organism stave off genetic extinction.
Genes have functions and neutral genes continue to function.
Neutral means in terms of fitness. Neutral does not add to or subtract from fitness.
I ask again, do you have any examples of genetic extinction that resulted from genetic load?
faceman writes:
RAZD writes:
Change the ecology and you change the equations for what is beneficial, what is neutral and what is deleterious.
So now we need to change the ecology to make the ToE work? Is that how you get neutral mutations to become beneficial?
The ecology changes because ecologies are dynamic. They change continuously and that means that selective pressures change, sometime subtlety and sometimes dramatically. This means that the influence of genes can change to neutral, beneficial or deleterious, in terms of fitness.
That's too clever by half.
Yes, it is quite clever. Finally, you have said something true.
Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
Sanford models a ~25% loss in fitness over 500 generations at his mutation rate. That translates into a ~100% loss of fitness in 100 generations at the mutation rate you require. In other words, you are unwittingly proposing a model in which we would have been extinct 2000 years ago.
faceman writes:
If it started with Adam's near perfect DNA, then the accumulation of mostly neutral mutations would go virtually unnoticed for a long time.
Not at your post flood mutation rate. The occurrence of severe detrimental mutations at 20 times the current rate would definitely be noticeable. The whole population would be sick!
faceman writes:
Eventually though, as more and more useful, original DNA gets mutated into neutral and garbled information, then the effects of this genetic load will lead to genetic extinction, not perfection.
"Neutral" won't harm us. If detrimental mutations can lead to extinction then they would necessarily be subject to purifying selection before the extinction happened, wouldn't they?
Another thing that would face negative selection is a dangerously high mutation rate, which is one of the reasons that we know your YEC model to be impossible from a genetic point of view.
Anyway, what I've been trying to explain to you is that you should be arguing against Sanford, not for him, if you want to be an advanced level YEC. You are currently, clearly unwittingly, shooting yourself in the foot.
By "in the way", I meant it will no longer be "available" to the organism as a source of useful information, ...
Would you AGREE or DISAGREE that a duplication mutation could be neutral?
... like it was before it mutated into a neutral mutation. ...
Would you AGREE or DISAGREE that the original sequence of a duplicated section of DNA is still "available" to the organism?
... In that way, it serves no purpose ...
Would you AGREE or DISAGREE that the original sequence from a duplication mutation would still serve it's previous purpose?
Would you AGREE or DISAGREE that the duplicated sequence from a duplication mutation would be "available" for further mutations without affecting the original sequence performing it's previous purpose?
... and eventually could be thought of as deleterious because it will no longer help the organism ...
Would you AGREE or DISAGREE that natural selection would tend to remove them if they are actually deleterious?
Would you AGREE or DISAGREE that if they are NOT actually deleterious that they would have no harmful effect on the organism? (definition of neutral)
... no longer help the organism stave off genetic extinction.
A rather absurd jumble of words. Some genes could be considered to have become "extinct" in that they no longer exist in some descendant genomes, but that doesn't appear to have any significant effect on organisms, and can in fact be why we now have different species.
Genes and other sections of DNA are also lost by deletion mutations, causing instant "extinction" of the deleted sections, and this has occurred in species where the organisms survive are reproduce, so loss is not necessarily deleterious.
Change the ecology and you change the equations for what is beneficial, what is neutral and what is deleterious.
So now we need to change the ecology to make the ToE work? Is that how you get neutral mutations to become beneficial? That's too clever by half.
No, the ecology is constantly changing, not just seasonal and climate changes, but the balance of species within the ecologies are constantly in flux. The mixture of species changes with seasonal migrations, permanent immigrations (into) and emigrations (out of), and by the continuous evolution of all the species involved.
I'm fairly certain I've defined information correctly, but feel free to provide your own explanation if you'd like.
Yes I do remember that humorous attempt, but it still fails to be a metric that can be measured, iirc. I also recall showing that it is either refuted as limiting evolution or irrelevant in affecting evolution, so continued use is rather humorous. Or pathetic, your choice.
Possibly because that is how evolution actually works.
... Changing hereditary traits and the frequencies of their distributions is hardly an increase in information (genome size).
Which just goes to show you that "increase in information (genome size)" is rather irrelevant to how evolution actually works.
Can you also quantify the increase in genome sizes (from protocell to human) by observing that mechanism in action somehow too?
The size of the genome is rather irrelevant to evolution, and there are many organisms that have larger genomes than humans. For instance the single cell Amoeboid Polychaos dubium ("Amoeba" dubia) genome has somewhere on the order of 670,000,000,000 base pairs while the Mammal Homo sapiens has around 3,200,000,000 base pairs.
Note that the size of the single cell amoeba genome compared to human should also give you a clue that the idea that the genome can become overloaded with neutral mutations is bogus.
Neutral means in terms of fitness. Neutral does not add to or subtract from fitness.
See the "nearly neutral theory", where most neutral mutations are actually slightly deleterious, but immune to natural selection, thus they continue to accumulate.
Tomoko Ohta, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Japan
Abstract
Nearly neutral theory is an extension of the neutral theory and contends that the borderline mutations, whose effects lie between the selected and the neutral classes, are important at the molecular level. Under the strict neutral theory, the evolutionary rate is equal to the neutral mutation rate. Under the near‐neutrality, the situation is not so simple and the most significant difference between the neutral and the nearly neutral theories is that the latter predicts a negative correlation between evolutionary rate and species population size. The nearly neutral theory also predicts abundant rare alleles in the population as compared with strict neutrality. Genome‐wide data on protein evolution are mostly in accord with the nearly neutral theory. Genetic regulatory systems are highly complex. The near‐neutrality concept may be extended to the evolution of such systems, where epigenetics and robustness are important for gene expression and many mutations are weakly selected. Key Concepts:
--The emphasis of significance of weak selection in evolution distinguishes the nearly neutral theory from the neutral theory.
--The nearly neutral theory contends that the interplay of drift and weak selection is important and predicts that evolution is more rapid in small populations than in large populations.
--Many observed patterns of protein evolution by measuring synonymous and nonsynonymous divergences are in accord with the nearly neutral theory.
--Observed molecular polymorphisms within a population often show abundance of rare alleles, in accord with the prediction of the nearly neutral theory.
--Numerous complex systems work together in living cells such as those in chromatin modelling/remodelling and in various signalling pathways. Interplay of drift and weak selection is important for evolution of such complex systems.
The size of the genome is rather irrelevant to evolution, and there are many organisms that have larger genomes than humans. For instance the single cell Amoeboid Polychaos dubium ("Amoeba" dubia) genome has somewhere on the order of 670,000,000,000 base pairs while the Mammal Homo sapiens has around 3,200,000,000 base pairs.
Yes you're right re: the genome size. I have to fall on my sword on this one. I shouldn't have mixed genome sizes and the amount of information.
Would you agree that a protocell would not have had the DNA sequences available to it to create an eye or an ear or hands or feet? Or did it?
See the "nearly neutral theory", where most neutral mutations are actually slightly deleterious, but immune to natural selection, thus they continue to accumulate.
So, who's theory is this? Any clues? By theory, in this case, I assume you mean wild assed guess, rather than what theory means in science.
Do you have any evidence that supports your "nearly neutral theory"?
You still haven't answered my question. Do you have any examples of genetic extinction that resulted from genetic load?
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
™ Version 4.2
