question on multi purpose genome.

This is for Dr. Borger if he is lurking.Peter on your MPG thread you make the folowing predictions.
Predictions:
1) predicts that within species we do not see abundant variation with respect to genes, and usually such genetic alterations are neutral or degenerate (although distinct alleles can be expected through the principle of degeneration, which is in effect the action of entropy).
It also predicts that all organism --even the simplest-- have an elaborate and accurate mechanism to counteract mutations.
2) predicts that a considerable part of the genes of any organism can be knocked out without being lethal.
3) predicts that adaptive phenotypes of organism do never demonstrate new genes.
4) predicts that organism lacking vital DNA elements are selected against.
5) predicts that there should be organisms that have not undergone genetic changes (yet).I cannot see why point 5 should be aprediction. Even if the MPG is a good model, why should point 5 hold?Thanks in advance

dear Judge,MPGs that do not have elaborate preexisting mechanisms to induce variation --it can be imagined that info for this can be lost since it is not absolutely ruiqered for survival-- may demonstrate no or very little variation. One such organism has recently been described: the Wollemia nobilis. No genetic variation at all, and it is another evolutionary riddle. Read about it in my thread "Molecular evidence for a multipurpose genome".Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-13-2003]

PB:
MPGs that do not have elaborate preexisting mechanisms to induce variation --it can be imagined that info for this can be lost since it is not absolutely ruiqered for survival-- may demonstrate no or very little variation. One such organism has recently been described: the Wollemia nobilis. No genetic variation at all, and it is another evolutionary riddle. Read about it in my thread "Molecular evidence for a multipurpose genome".judge:
Thanks...this seems a little different to point 5 though. point 5 says .."there should exist organisms that have not yet undergone gentic change"but aren't you really saying ..."the should/may exist organisms that have changed so much (i.e. they have lost the mechanisms that induce variation) that they display no or little variation?Would cheetahs be another example..or close to?Thanks in advance.p.s I have been trying to understand your ideas better by discussing them with a couple of biologists on another forum. The main objection sems to be that there are too many similarities even to be explained by so called non random mutations. What I mean is that although NRM lead to a greater probability of certain mutations, that even this greater probability cannot account for the ammount of similarity. Any comment, as i am a bit out of my depth but find it interesting so would like to undersdtand better...[This message has been edited by judge, 02-16-2003]

Dear Judge,J: Would cheetahs be another example..or close to?PB: Peter Scheele wrote a book on degeneration. He shows a lot of examples, including the cheetah.Peter

quote:

---

judge:
I have been trying to understand your ideas better by discussing them with a couple of biologists on another forum. The main objection sems to be that there are too many similarities even to be explained by so called non random mutations. What I mean is that although NRM lead to a greater probability of certain mutations, that even this greater probability cannot account for the ammount of similarity.

---

That is amazingly similar to what I have been saying...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
judge:
I have been trying to understand your ideas better by discussing them with a couple of biologists on another forum. The main objection sems to be that there are too many similarities even to be explained by so called non random mutations. What I mean is that although NRM lead to a greater probability of certain mutations, that even this greater probability cannot account for the ammount of similarity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------slp:
That is amazingly similar to what I have been saying...judge:
Is it possible to describe this simply mathematically? Can we say for example..the chance of two mutations arising "randomly" is x , there fore it is "impossible".
Where would the kind of mutations decribed by Dr Caporale or Lynn Ripley fit in?How easy is it to work out mutation rates on something like humans which have a generation rate of around thirty years.Thanks for the other replies. It will take a little while to digest it.