|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4514 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Adding information to the genome. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4514 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
Seriously, dude, get a clue. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
Percy is somewhat more than a moderator. He pretty much runs the whole kit and caboodle, down to writing the software the site operates on.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined:
|
On top of that, if Percy participates in a thread, he leaves the moderating to others. And when he moderates a thread, he doesn't participate. Even though he is an admin, he's still entitled to an opinion.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
Your quotes in no way address anything I said, for the reasons Percy and others have already highlighted.
Needless to say, their fate is largely determined by random drift. When any novel mutation arises de novo it is of course at very low frequency in the population. The statistical reality is that almost all such low frequency alleles will be removed by drift. In fact there is a good case to be made that drift acts as much to reduce variation within a population as it does to maintain it. Go to any genetic dfit simulation and you can see this, take http://www.biology.arizona.edu/...ution/act/drift/frame.html as an example. Plug in a population size, up to 10, and a number of generations to follow and you will see that the majority of the variation in the population is in fact extinguished by the operation of drift. One issue with that simulation is that the effects of drift are exacerbated due to the very small population sizes allowed. For a simulation allowing you to study larger populations,albeit for only one allele, go to http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/simulations/jdk1.0/drift.html . If you set the p value to 0.1, a low frequency allele, then you can see that the alleles frequently run to extinction, until you get to higher population sizes. What natural selection does is to affect these trends by giving beneficial alleles a better chance of propagating (or rather the traits we consider to be 'selected' are the ones that do this themselves). Go to http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/simulations/selection-drift.html to see the effect of selection on the previous drift simulation. Even with a much smaller starting frequency the alleles can reach fixation in a much shorter space of time than by drift alone. This doesn't avoid the operation of drift however, in a small population even strongly selected alleles still often run to extinction.
If you refuse to accept what Kimura said, there isn't. The problem is that you refuse to understand or stick to what Kimura says. You keep trying to graft on your own misunderstandings and try and piggy back them through using Kimura's authority. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Kaichos Man writes: Seriously, dude, get a clue.
And you're a moderator? As Percy no, I'm not a moderator. Admin, my linked account, is a moderator. I'm not playing a moderator role in this thread. But if you feel like you're experiencing problems in a thread then you should raise your issues at Report discussion problems here: No.2 and devote your attention in this thread to responding to the points people make, just as we are doing for the points you make. I will describe my points again. Kimura never uses the term "junk DNA." He instead says "functionally less important." And he's talking about variation at the molecular level, not the phenotypic level. We've told you this many times in this thread. The other point I'll just repeat:
Percy writes: Kaichos Man writes: 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. I can tell that you're under the impression that this Kimura quote somehow advances your position, but not being able to misinterpret Kimura with your flair and panache I have no idea why. In case it isn't clear, this is where instead of evasion you explain how this Kimura quote supports your point. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3027 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined:
|
Kaichos Man writes:
Nah! He doesn't show that. He echos and supports that idea from basic biology, genetics, and population genetics. Selection is one of the mechanisms of evolution that tends to eliminate variation in populations. It does this because favorable variation in light of the surrounding environment lends differential reproductive success. The idea is most definitely not original with Kimura. Kimura shows that selection can play little or no role in the generation of variation. (Genetic) drift, by the same token, tends to eliminate variation. As Wounded King has pointed out, the smaller the population, the more likely it is that novel variations will be eliminated. The founder effect, a special case of genetic drift, is understood to be causal in the speciation of small island populations. There are other commonly recognized mechanisms that tend to reduce variation in populations, biased variation and non-random mating. Of course there are also mechanisms that tend to increase variation: mutation, gene flow, transposable elements, and recombination. Others may be able to list other, less obvious, mechanisms. Edited by pandion, : redundant statement
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4514 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
Kimura never uses the term "junk DNA." He instead says "functionally less important." What would you say constitues the vast majority of "functionally less important" DNA? "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
You've lost the thread of the conversation. What you said that I objected to was, "It therefore made sense to Kimura that the only place the variation needed by evolution could take place was in the junk DNA." This is, of course, false.
Reread my Message 218 where I describe how you were making two contradictory claims about what Kimura believed. You were claiming that he both acknowledged and rejected that evolution could occur in functionally important DNA. There's no substitute for knowing what you're talking about, and you clearly don't. After more than 200 posts you're still making the same mistakes you started with. I again suggest you read and reread the paper you've been quoting from until you understand it: Retrospective of the last quarter century of the neutral theory. Keep a dictionary of genetics terminology close by and refer to it often. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Percy writes: Reality *is* an information system. It's a bit metaphysical Percy! But logically: R -> I~I -> ~R Entropy is imaginary. Honestly, I think we need to do a whole new thread on information. Edited by LucyTheApe, : l There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Honestly, I think we need to do a whole new thread on information. Please! No! Not another one, aaaaargh!! TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
one on one in a new thread.
There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
LucyTheApe writes: one on one in a new thread. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4514 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
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. I assume you mean "genotypic level". This he demonstrated mathematically. With regard to the phenotypic level, he limited himself to speculation: "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."" Where you've gone completely wrong about Kimura is in claiming that he denied a role for natural selection. He did, in the generation of variation: "(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. Notice that Kimura saw "relaxed selection" as a prerequisite for the generation of variation. Once variation had been achieved through point mutation of duplicate genes, he saw renewed selection as the arbiter of adaptive value. "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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024