Adding information to the genome.

Kimura wrote:"What I want to emphasize is that relaxation of natural selection is the prerequisite for new evolutionary progress'.-ergo-If natural selection is not relaxed, evolution will not progress.-ergo-Stasis.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Well, that's one explanation, though it could be argued that it's the same process viewed from different angles. Personally, I think that when he says "latent selective potential is realised", he actually means that something useful emerges, and the actual "selection" take splace in step iv.No matter. What is important from the point of view of "Adding information to the genome" is that Kimura clearly saw no significant role for selection in the creation of variation. He attributes that to gene duplication and random drift.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

So you agree with Kimura that variation results from random drift operating on duplicated genes, and selection plays no part in this process? No step-by-step, slow-and-gradual, each-mutation-must-confer-a-survival-advantage process?Good. At least that's logical. Natural selection can't play a role until it can "see" the variation, and that's going to need at least a new gene, unless it's merely a modification of existing information.So we have new genes being crafted from duplicated genes by random drift. Genetic structures of highly specified complexity being formed by purely random forces.I'm feeling better all ready.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Never looked at it that way, WK. Can you explain "random selection" a bit more?

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

You're missing the point here, Coyote. Kimura is saying that hemoglobin didn't have to vary at all. That's why he calls it "unnecessary evolution".Edited by Kaichos Man, : typo

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Let me know when you've finished arguing with yourself.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Let's take another look at what Kimura said:"(2) There is a sudden increase or boom of neutral variations under relaxed selection. In this stage, gene duplication in addition
to point mutation must play a very important role in producing
genetic variations. Needless to say, their fate is largely
determined by random drift."So the variation is created by mutation and decided by drift. Okay, two different processes, granted. But it could be said that variation is the result of both mutation and drift.Imagine we go to a poker game, WK. We take our seats at the table, along with other people, and the dealer deals the cards. The hand that I get represents the "heritable traits" -or variation- that I will pass on. Likewise for you, of course. The dealer represents mutation. The seat I chose represents drift (obviously if I had sat in another seat I would have received a different hand). Therefore my "variation" was the result of two factors; the dealer and the seat I chose. Mutation and drift.Thanks for the explanation of random selection, by the way. Most illuminating.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

I don't understand this statement. How can you have evolutionary progress that isn't new? Iterative evolution? Homoplasy? Why would the rules be different for them? Which is exactly what Kimura meant by "a relaxation of natural selection". He even used the Cambrian explosion as an example. The reason why neo-Darwinism has had to share the stage -very reluctantly and nervously, at times- with Neutral Theory is because the theory is based on observed and documented data.Evidence. Kimura was able to underpin his theory with mathematical formulae that were testable and falsifiable. The use of those formulae is standard procedure with molecular biologists today.This is real science, RAZD, and it is light years removed from speculative storytelling like the evolution of lactation. All true. No argument from me. Decidedly not true. If there were such "facts" (as opposed to guesses, suggestions, hopeful extrapolations and legends disguised with scientific terminology) this forum would not exist. Edited by Kaichos Man, : typo

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Yes, they certainly need the odd new trait...

Maybe that should read "flush-out":"Furthermore, synapomorphy aside, even if the presence of similar ramal morphology in Au. afarensis and Au. robustus did, indeed, represent homoplasy, the Au. afarensis ramal anatomy would still exclude this taxon from our ancestry". (Rak et al, 2007)

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

It is the "largely" I am interested in.Let me explain my interest in the work of Kimura. It has been claimed that I have attempted to portray Kimura as anti-evolution. We all know that isn't true. He may have been anti-modern-synthesis, but he was an evolutionist to the bootstraps. So why would I, and other Creationists, be so interested in his theory?The answer lies in why Kimura formed his theory. He observed that "functionally less important molecules, or portions of molecules, evolve faster than more important ones". Functionally important parts of the genome show very little variation. Purifying selection keeps things very quiet. Just the odd synonymous mutation. The real party is going on in the "junk DNA", where an absence of selection means mutations can proliferate.It therefore made sense to Kimura that the only place the variation needed by evolution could take place was in the junk DNA. Selection couldn't play a role until some form of useful variation had been created. Kimura decided the easiest way this could be achieved was through the neofunctionalisation of duplicated genes.Obviously, this scenario is attractive to Creationists for two reasons. Firstly, the theory uses hard data to establish that evolution of the functionally important parts of the genome is severely constrained. That really gives evolution an uphill battle, for a start. And secondly, Kimura shows that selection can play little or no role in the generation of variation. In fact, he insists on a "relaxation of selection" as a prerequisite for evolution to proceed!This means the highly-complex genetic structures required as new genomic information have to be built by random mutation alone. And all the breath-taking improbabilities we Creationists like to deal in are suddenly operative. Exactly right. Kimura even wryly observed that most modern biochemists use this method to identify functionally important parts of the genome, though many of them don't realise it originated from the Neutral Theory.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Kimura:"(2) Thereis a sudden increase or boom of neutral variations under
relaxed selection. In this stage, gene duplication in addition
to point mutation must play a very important role in producing
genetic variations. Needless to say, their fate is largely
determined by random drift". Perhaps you don't understand Kimura's problem with functional variation. I'll allow him to elaborate:"Functionally less important molecules or parts of a molecule evolve (in terms of mutant substitutions) faster than more important ones." Kimura:"(2) There is a sudden increase or boom of neutral variations under relaxed selection. In this stage, gene duplication in addition
to point mutation must play a very important role in producing
genetic variations. Needless to say, their fate is largely
determined by random drift."As we agreed earlier. Caused by random mutation. Chosen by random drift. Both random processes. If you refuse to accept what Kimura said, there isn't.Edited by Kaichos Man, : No reason given.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Left yourself with a nice little out with the word "significant", haven't you, Percy? That makes it all highly subjective. Who is going to decide what's significant and what isn't? For example:"Advantageous mutations may occur, but the neutral theory
assumes that they are so rare that they may be neglected in
our quantitative consideration".Significant?

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Guilty. I should have said "principal" rather than "only".Kimura:"It is now a routine practice to search for various signals by comparing a relevant region of homologous DNA sequences of diverse organisms and to pick out a constant or "consensus" pattern, but to disregard variable parts as unimportant"So an important region of DNA sequence is identified by its lack of variation.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

And you're a moderator?

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin