Adding information to the genome.

Hi Kaichos Man,Let me try to add a little clarification.You later corrected your statement to be, in effect, that Kimura believed the *principle* [as opposed to "only"] place were evolution could take place was in junk DNA. But Kimura doesn't use the term junk DNA. He says "functionally less important," and the stress you're placing on junk DNA is another cause of your misinterpretations.The key point that Kimura is trying to make, and you actually quote him saying it at one point, is that the less functionally important a region of DNA is the faster it can evolve. And virtually all biologists would agree with this.What Kimura said that was controversial at the time was that evolution in functionally less important regions of DNA, termed genetic drift, was a significant contributor to evolution at the phenotypic level, and he demonstrated this mathematically.Where you've gone completely wrong about Kimura is in claiming that he denied a role for natural selection. As I've said before, he was only trying to place another actor on the stage of evolution in the form of genetic drift. He wasn't trying to replace natural selection. No biologist would ever conclude that natural selection doesn't happen, because it is required for adaptation. Without natural selection there could be no adaptation.--Percy

If you wish to continue that information discussion then thread Evolving New Information is waiting for you. My last post is Message 399, and the question in which I'm most interested is how you calculated the figures you provided in your Message 339. You said, "The shell consists of 832 bits the first bit of code consisted of another 1752 bits and the second bit of code added another 376 bits." How did you arrive at those numbers?--Percy

Screwed up the old one so bad it's irretrievable, huh!Do what you like, but thread Evolving New Information is still waiting for a response from you about how you calculated the amount of information in your code snippet.--Percy

Hi Kaichos Man,Where are you getting your quotes from so that I may place them in context? I think you're having trouble understanding simple English. Where in the quoted passage do you interpret Kimura as denying a role for natural selection? AbE: And as we've told you over and over and over, natural selection doesn't generate variation. It acts as a filter on variation. Variation survives to the next generation as a result of natural selection operating to select that variation, not because it was generated by natural selection. It doesn't take any genius to understand this simple division of responsibility. Artist generates various types of art, the public selects the art. The art that survives was not generated by the public. In the same way, variants that survive were not generated by natural selection.How many times does this have to be explained to you? No sane biologist would ever deny a role for natural selection because it's responsible for all adaptation. Drift is random without regard to the environment and cannot produce adaptation to that environment outside of sheer luck. Only natural selection can produce adaptation to the environment, and the evidence for adaptation is in all life everywhere.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add clarifying couple sentences.Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

I think the many ways have already been enumerated in this thread, and your recent Kimura quote mentioned one of them, gene duplication: After one gene becomes two through gene duplication the two genes will experience different mutations over time and gradually become more and more different.--Percy

Might accessing that link require a subscription to Molecular Biology?--Percy

I've been avoiding taking the "hopeful monster" interpretation of neutral theory. When Kimura talks of relaxed selection I thought he had in mind an environment of plentiful resources resulting in broader ranges of variation within species categories than is typically the case, thereby increasing the likelihood of dealing successfully with eventual environmental change.--Percy

Hi Kaichos Man,You're making several errors.As we keep telling you, you're misinterpreting most of your Kimura quotes. You can't provide quotes you've misinterpreted to support your position because they don't mean what you think they mean.Natural selection is not a source of variation. All biologists, including Kimura, understand that natural selection is not a source of variation. Kimura could not differ with other biologists about this because they all agree. Dawkins understands this too, and so there is no "dawkins-weasel-style building of variation through natural selection." No biologist believes or has ever believed that natural selection is a source of variation. Not Darwin. Not Huxley. Not Haldane. Not Haeckel. Not Gould. Not Dawkins. Not Kimura.Kimura did not deny a role for natural selection. He merely wanted to add another player onto the stage of evolution. You're appear to not even be reading your own quotes: See where it says "natural selection a lesser part"? Do you understand what "lesser part" means? Do you understand that it doesn't mean "no part at all?"--Percy

Hi Bolder-dash,If you'd like to discuss the topic then please join us, by all means, but if you only have meta comments then could you please take them to the Peanut Gallery? Thanks.About how information can be added to the genome, gene duplication is the one most recently mentioned. If you have questions just ask.--Percy

Hi Bolder-dash,Again, if you'd like to discuss the topic then please join us, by all means. Meta comments about the discussion should be taken to the Peanut Gallery. Reports of problems in discussion threads should be taken to Report discussion problems here: No.2.I can remove your posting privileges for this forum if need be.--Percy

His comment? Please see Message 257, Message 259, Message 263 and Message 265, none of which touched on the topic. Plus there's his history from his own thread, Has natural selection really been tested and verified? , eventually declaring that he was victorious and abandoning the discussion. I want to prevent Bolder-dash from repeating that behavior here.I can post a note to Report discussion problems here: No.2 and bring in moderator help, or we can police ourselves and get on-topic.

Hi LucyTheApe,Why are you quoting and responding in this thread to what I said in Message 399 over in the Evolving New Information thread? If you'd like to continue the discussion we were having in the other thread, the one that left off with you needing to explain how you calculated your figures, then you should respond over in that thread. I just posted this note over there: Message 400--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

You're repeating the same question Wounded King just answered, where he said this: I think you're going to have to break down, use some dBCodes to quote some part of WK's answer, then respond to that. Just asking the same question again isn't going to help the discussion make any progress.Note that at one point WK uses "gearing" as an analogy, and it's a good one. For example, as long as the mutations are neutral with respect to phenotype, genomic change can churn away without affecting that phenotype. It is even possible for mutations that do affect the phenotype to be neutral with respect to selection.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Minor clarification in last paragraph.