Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4478 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 196 of 296 (643931)
12-13-2011 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Taq
12-12-2011 12:06 PM


Re: Long time no contradict
You mean the guy who described the random nature of neutral mutations compared to the non-random nature of mutations under selection?
That's right. The same guy who you and the Good Doctor think is on your side, but Dobzhansky was under no such illusion. The following from a BBC transcript- I can source it if you like:
Dobzhansky: It took a century to show that [objections to Darwinism] are devoid of foundation. But now Dr. Kimura and his followers claim evolution to be due to changes which are neither useful nor harmful to their possessors. They are simply neutral and are established merely by chance. If that were so, evolution would have hardly any meaning, and would not be going anywhere in particular. All that we knowall that we observe both in nature and in the laboratoryseems, I believe, to contradict this contention. This is not simply a quibble among specialists. To a man looking for the meaning of his existence, evolution by natural selection makes sense.
Interesting little Freudian slip in that last sentence. "Looking for meaning"? I thought the central tenet of evolution is that there is no purpose, and therefore no meaning.

"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Taq, posted 12-12-2011 12:06 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2011 12:30 AM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4478 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 197 of 296 (643934)
12-13-2011 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Wounded King
12-12-2011 9:59 AM


Re: Long time no contradict
To my suggestion that luck might be the deciding factor in selection, in line with kimura's beliefs, you wrote:
It so totally doesn't, at least not in relation to any position that Kimura actually held.
"I feel very lucky that this revolution occurred just at the time when my theoretical work was ready for it. I was therefore able to publish the first version of my neutral theory of molecular evolution just twenty years ago... . After the expression, ``Survival of the Fittest,'' which epitomizes the Darwinian theory of natural selection, I have proposed ``Survival of the Luckiest'' as a phrase that best characterizes my Neutral Theory. (Kimura, 1990a)"

"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Wounded King, posted 12-12-2011 9:59 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Admin, posted 12-13-2011 8:03 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 199 by Wounded King, posted 12-13-2011 8:21 AM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 200 by Taq, posted 12-13-2011 4:54 PM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 198 of 296 (643936)
12-13-2011 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Kaichos Man
12-13-2011 7:50 AM


Topic Reminder
The topic is Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation. Raising questions about the random nature of evolution is at least a prerequisite for discussing the topic, but now you're introducing Dobzhansky's views about evolution's role in a search for meaning and quoting Kimura about neutral theory.
From this point on I'd like any discussion to be related to the topic. If you'd like to discuss any of these other areas then please propose threads for them over at Proposed New Topics.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-13-2011 7:50 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 199 of 296 (643937)
12-13-2011 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Kaichos Man
12-13-2011 7:50 AM


Kimura redux
We've already had a long thread (Adding information to the genome.) a big chunk of which was you failing to understand Kimura's work in relation to natural selection despite having it explained to you repeatedly. I'm not sure that we really need another one, in fact that thread is still open so maybe you should take discussion of your 'understanding' of Kimura there rather than derailing this thread.
But just to address the specific point in your post, all you have shown is that Kimura believed chance was important in the generation of the genetic variation that we see in populations. You haven't shown that he thought it had anything to do with selection. The whole point of neutral theory is that selection and drift are two distinct forces which act to produce the patterns of genetic variation that we see, one random (drift) and the other non-random (selection). *ABE just for Percy* Of course in the context of Wright's work the question is whether the mutations themselves are random or non-random and in precisely what sense.*/ABE*
Kimura put forward that the large majority of molecular evolution was neutral, reflecting no selection for fitness. So if you changed your opening sentence to say, "To my suggestion that luck might be the deciding factor in [evolution], in line with kimura's beliefs" then you would have actually been making sense. You would still have been wrong but at least you would have been simply grossly exaggerating and simplifying what Kimura actually put forward rather than your bizarre creationist bastardisation of it.
And there we go, despite my best intentions you trolled me into explaining this to you yet again, well done.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : Added a smidgen of relevancy.
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-13-2011 7:50 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-14-2011 4:34 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 207 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-14-2011 6:42 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 200 of 296 (643974)
12-13-2011 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Kaichos Man
12-13-2011 7:50 AM


Re: Long time no contradict
To my suggestion that luck might be the deciding factor in selection, in line with kimura's beliefs, you wrote:
Please show how the selection of leuB revertant mutants in the Wright et al. paper was due to luck. Remember, the mutation only occurred once in every 500 million divisions. So how is it that they always ended up with these same mutants after selection and not the other 499,999 bacteria without the mutation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-13-2011 7:50 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 201 of 296 (643998)
12-14-2011 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Kaichos Man
12-13-2011 7:33 AM


Re: Long time no contradict
That's right. The same guy who you and the Good Doctor think is on your side, but Dobzhansky was under no such illusion. The following from a BBC transcript- I can source it if you like:
Dobzhansky: It took a century to show that [objections to Darwinism] are devoid of foundation. But now Dr. Kimura and his followers claim evolution to be due to changes which are neither useful nor harmful to their possessors. They are simply neutral and are established merely by chance. If that were so, evolution would have hardly any meaning, and would not be going anywhere in particular. All that we knowall that we observe both in nature and in the laboratoryseems, I believe, to contradict this contention. This is not simply a quibble among specialists. To a man looking for the meaning of his existence, evolution by natural selection makes sense.
Perhaps on another thread we can discuss who understood better what Kimura's opinions were --- Dozhansky or Kimura.
I shall, of course, be arguing that it was Kimura, because I am not stark raving mad. You, meanwhile, are free to pick which authority you agree with. Will you side with Dobzhansky, who wrote that: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", or will you side with Kimura, who wrote that: "Our civilization would be pitifully immature without the intellectual revolution led by Darwin"?
Interesting little Freudian slip in that last sentence. "Looking for meaning"? I thought the central tenet of evolution is that there is no purpose, and therefore no meaning.
Whereas I associate the doctrine that evolution would render existence meaningless with the bunch of religious crackpots who actually promulgate it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-13-2011 7:33 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-14-2011 4:01 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4478 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 202 of 296 (644005)
12-14-2011 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Dr Adequate
12-14-2011 12:30 AM


Re: Long time no contradict
Whereas I associate the doctrine that evolution would render existence meaningless with the bunch of religious crackpots who actually promulgate it.
Indeed Dotore?
Then kindly explain how a random, directionless and purposeless process can give rise to a "meaningful" existence. Perhaps you would like to start with a non-vital human morality like honesty? Then you can go on with universal human qualities like worship, guilt, love, art, humour, etc.
We're waiting.

"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2011 12:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2011 4:28 AM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2011 4:34 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 203 of 296 (644006)
12-14-2011 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Kaichos Man
12-14-2011 4:01 AM


Re: Long time no contradict
Then kindly explain how a random, directionless and purposeless process can give rise to a "meaningful" existence.
For example, by producing human beings, who have a meaningful existence. Are you perhaps trying to commit the Genetic Fallacy? You're not very good at it.
But this is all off-topic, perhaps you could get back to being wrong about the subject actually under discussion. If you want to be wrong about what is required for a meaningful existence, you could be wrong about that over on Bluejay's thread about The Meaning Of "Meaning" ... Edited to add, no, you can't, it's closed. Still, I'm sure you can find or at least start some thread in which your latest delusion is more appropriate than this one.
We're waiting.
The phrase "we're waiting" is more usually used when someone has given you occasion to wait.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-14-2011 4:01 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-14-2011 7:05 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 204 of 296 (644007)
12-14-2011 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Kaichos Man
12-14-2011 4:01 AM


Re: Long time no contradict
DP.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-14-2011 4:01 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4478 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 205 of 296 (644008)
12-14-2011 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Wounded King
12-13-2011 8:21 AM


Re: Kimura redux
all you have shown is that Kimura believed chance was important in the generation of the genetic variation that we see in populations. You haven't shown that he thought it had anything to do with selection.
Well, let's consult the little Japanes master himself on that, WK:
"Finally, I would like to discuss briefly the problem How
can we understand evolution at two levels-that is, molecular
and phenotypic-in a unified way? It is generally believed
that, in contrast to the neutralist view of molecular evolution,
evolutionary changes at the phenotypic level are almost
exclusively adaptive and caused by Darwinian positive selection.
However, I think that even at the phenotypic level,
there must be many changes that are so nearly neutral that
random drift plays a significant role, particularly with respect
to "quantitative characters."
So while changes at the molecular level are neutral, changes at the phenotype level are "almost exclusively adaptive". Kimura then goes on to disagree with this "However...there must be many changes that are so nearly neutral that random drift plays a significant role".
I believe Kimura is working his way around the elephant in the room here. How can the genotype and the phenotype evolve by different methods? They can't. Example:
Organism X gets a mutation. The mutation proves beneficial. Over time, all non-mutants in the population die out, and the mutation become fixed. The phenotype has evolved through selection. What about the genotype? That must have evolved through selection, too, and Kimura must be wrong.
He wasn't, of course. But then he knew that the only mutations that endure are non-deleterious, i.e. they don't damage important DNA. They don't lead to evolution either, but that's the neo-Darwinist's problem.
So the genotype evolves by neutral mutations, while its physical expression, the phenotype, advances through selection. Poppycock.
Kimura knew this. That's why he wrote:
"Advantageous mutations may occur, but the neutral theory
assumes that they are so rare that they may be neglected in
our quantitative consideration."
Kimura's concession that selection evolves the phenotype was a logical non-sequiture designed to placate anxious neo-Darwinists. He knew it made no sense. But it kept them off his back.

"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Wounded King, posted 12-13-2011 8:21 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2011 4:38 AM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 206 of 296 (644009)
12-14-2011 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Kaichos Man
12-14-2011 4:34 AM


Re: Kimura redux
all you have shown is that Kimura believed chance was important in the generation of the genetic variation that we see in populations. You haven't shown that he thought it had anything to do with selection.
There was a brief moment there when I thought you'd written something true, but then I realized that you must be quoting Wounded King.
Kimura's concession that selection evolves the phenotype was a logical non-sequiture designed to placate anxious neo-Darwinists. He knew it made no sense. But it kept them off his back.
So, let's get this straight. You wish to resolve the massive discrepancies between what on the one hand you wish to pretend that Kimura meant, and what on the other hand Kimura clearly, distinctly, and repeatedly said ... by accusing Kimura of being a deliberate and calculating liar?
This is low even for you. But if that's what you want to do, then another question arises. Having traduced his reputation and his veracity in this way, are you sure that you still want to hold him up as the voice of authority? "The notorious liar Motoo Kimura once said ..." would not be an introductory clause that would lend much weight to what followed after.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-14-2011 4:34 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-14-2011 7:00 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4478 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 207 of 296 (644010)
12-14-2011 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Wounded King
12-13-2011 8:21 AM


Re: Kimura redux
all you have shown is that Kimura believed chance was important in the generation of the genetic variation that we see in populations. You haven't shown that he thought it had anything to do with selection.
Well, let's consult the little Japanes master himself on that, WK:
"Finally, I would like to discuss briefly the problem How
can we understand evolution at two levels-that is, molecular
and phenotypic-in a unified way? It is generally believed
that, in contrast to the neutralist view of molecular evolution,
evolutionary changes at the phenotypic level are almost
exclusively adaptive and caused by Darwinian positive selection.
However, I think that even at the phenotypic level,
there must be many changes that are so nearly neutral that
random drift plays a significant role, particularly with respect
to "quantitative characters."
So while changes at the molecular level are neutral, changes at the phenotype level are "almost exclusively adaptive". Kimura then goes on to disagree with this "However...there must be many changes that are so nearly neutral that random drift plays a significant role".
I believe Kimura is working his way around the elephant in the room here. How can the genotype and the phenotype evolve by different methods? They can't. Example:
Organism X gets a mutation. The mutation proves beneficial. Over time, all non-mutants in the population die out, and the mutation become fixed. The phenotype has evolved through selection. What about the genotype? That must have evolved through selection, too, and Kimura must be wrong.
He wasn't, of course. But then he knew that the only mutations that endure are non-deleterious, i.e. they don't damage important DNA. They don't lead to evolution either, but that's the neo-Darwinist's problem.
So the genotype evolves by neutral mutations, while its physical expression, the phenotype, advances through selection. Poppycock.
Kimura knew this. That's why he wrote:
"Advantageous mutations may occur, but the neutral theory
assumes that they are so rare that they may be neglected in
our quantitative consideration."
Kimura's concession that selection evolves the phenotype was a logical non-sequiteur designed to placate anxious neo-Darwinists. He knew it made no sense. But it kept them off his back.

"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Wounded King, posted 12-13-2011 8:21 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-14-2011 6:44 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4478 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 208 of 296 (644011)
12-14-2011 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Kaichos Man
12-14-2011 6:42 AM


Re: Kimura redux
Sorry, my computer was telling me I hadn't posted this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-14-2011 6:42 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2011 7:00 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4478 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 209 of 296 (644014)
12-14-2011 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Dr Adequate
12-14-2011 4:38 AM


Re: Kimura redux
... by accusing Kimura of being a deliberate and calculating liar?
I don't think throwing a drowning man a straw is lying. It's just placating those who believe the man isn't really drowning.
This from Motoo:
"More than a decade and a half ago, in collaboration with Ohta, I enumerated five principles that govern molecular evolution, one of which states that functionally less important molecules or parts of a molecule evolve (in terms of mutant substitutions) faster than more important ones."
Even here Kimura is throwing the neo-Darwinists a bone. He could equally have said that functionally less important parts of a molecule evolve, while important ones don't. After all, this is precisely what his research shows. Speed has nothing to do with it.
"When this principle was proposed, accompanied by its neutralist explanation, much opposition was voiced by the neo-Darwinian establishment"
You boys got your knickers in a twist.
"... but I am glad to note that it has become a part of common knowledge among molecular biologists
I was right. Suck it up.
Hey, you can still pretend that selection somehow -magically- evolves the phenotype while leaving the genotype untouched. Little cognitive dissonance. It's not so hard.

"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2011 4:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2011 7:05 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 221 by Taq, posted 12-14-2011 3:10 PM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 210 of 296 (644015)
12-14-2011 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Kaichos Man
12-14-2011 6:44 AM


Re: Kimura redux
Sorry, my computer was telling me I hadn't posted this.
You and your computer make a good team.
---
Wounded King has reposted some of your Kimura nonsense on a thread where it was already being discussed, in an attempt to stop you from further derailing this one. Feel free to participate on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-14-2011 6:44 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024