|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Jones Junior Member (Idle past 4615 days) Posts: 21 Joined: |
[qsPerhaps you could explain how it is lacking? Are you saying that fitness is not a factor in the propagation of a genome?qs]
I argued aginst the use of the term fitness. Unfortunately, the term is well-entrenched in biology. I suggested that biology could be better expressed without it. Here are the reasons I gave:"Fitness of offspring" -- As offspring and/or their parents are, by definition "fit" simply by being there, then fitness is not a quality "of" offspring or their parents. As this is a grammatical, semantic point, then we can replace offspring and parents with any X. X can be genomes, for example. As the OP appeared to select biological/chemical facts by using the framework of fitness, then it threatened his enterprise with a tautology. (Fitness can't be a quality "of" a life-form, or "of" X; if fitness is the presence of X. All we end up saying is that fitness is the name of X. ) (also note, if you argue that success of reproduction of the offspring makes them fit, then i) success of reproduction doesn't necessarily incur advantage to the species, and ii) clearly, if the offspring do not reproduce then the parents reproductive success cannot be regarded as "fitness" or success. )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3739 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Still you seem unable to grasp simple formatting.
Replace your quoted text with:
[qs=taq] Perhaps you could explain how it is lacking? Are you saying that fitness is not a factor in the propagation of a genome? [/qs] Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
John Jones writes: [qsPerhaps you could explain how it is lacking? Are you saying that fitness is not a factor in the propagation of a genome?qs] You continue to have trouble with quoting. I think we should assume you've never used a discussion board before. Let us know if there is some way we can help you figure this out.
(also note, if you argue that success of reproduction of the offspring makes them fit... No one is arguing that "success of reproduction of the offspring makes them fit." Reproductive success is an indicator of fitness, not a cause. Fitness is a result of adaptation, which itself is a result of generations of descent with modification and natural selection, also known as evolution. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I argued aginst the use of the term fitness. It would seem that you are arguing over semantics. No matter what word you use there is still the observation that specific alleles increase the chances of an organism producing more offspring than others in a given environment.
As the OP appeared to select biological/chemical facts by using the framework of fitness, then it threatened his enterprise with a tautology. (Fitness can't be a quality "of" a life-form, or "of" X; if fitness is the presence of X. All we end up saying is that fitness is the name of X. ) You are forgetting the observations that they made. They observed that mutants who carried a mutation in the leuB- gene that resulted in an enzyme capable of de novo leucine production produced more offspring than those without the mutation in an environment that lacked extracellular leucine. This is an observation, not a tautology. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Taq writes:
It would seem that you are arguing over semantics. No matter what word you use there is still the observation that specific alleles increase the chances of an organism producing more offspring than others in a given environment. If specific alles increase the chances of an organism producing more offspring than others in a given enviroment, and these alles production are more than those w/o the mutation, this sound alot like mutations for fitness, that are not "random" as per Darwin.Am I wrong in this observation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
If specific alles increase the chances of an organism producing more offspring than others in a given enviroment, and these alles production are more than those w/o the mutation, this sound alot like mutations for fitness, that are not "random" as per Darwin. Am I wrong in this observation? As Wolfgang Pauli once put it, you aren't even wrong. What does "these alleles production are more than those w/o the mutaiton" mean? What "production" are we looking at? Production of mutants? Production of mRNA? Production of protein? Production of offspring? What exactly? The facts of the matter is that your supposed "genetic engineering systems" can only produce 2 bacteria per BILLION that carry a mutation that is beneficial in the given environment. How do you explain such a low mutation rate? Shouldn't an engineered system produce 500 million per billion beneficial mutations (i.e. 50%)? Why only 2? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Taq writes:
The facts of the matter is that your supposed "genetic engineering systems" can only produce 2 bacteria per BILLION that carry a mutation that is beneficial in the given environment. How do you explain such a low mutation rate? Shouldn't an engineered system produce 500 million per billion beneficial mutations (i.e. 50%)? Why only 2? Maybe because those are the beneficial mutations necessary for the system. Engineering systems are designed to be specific and not wasteful. If 2 mutations are all that are needed to bring about the desired outcome, why would there be a need for more?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Hi Taq,
Not sure why you're jumping all over Shadow on this one:
shadow writes: If specific alles increase the chances of an organism producing more offspring than others in a given enviroment, and these alles production are more than those w/o the mutation, this sound alot like mutations for fitness, that are not "random" as per Darwin. Because he says "producing more offspring," his later use of the word production also refers to offspring. He's trying to describe the cause of differential reproduction as being allele mutations that allow organisms to produce more offspring than others of their species without the mutation. He only goes off the rails at the end where he calls mutations that produce greater fitness as being non-random, and also in ascribing this erroneous view to Darwin, who though he preceded the discovery of mutations definitely viewed variation as random. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Hi Percy,
I'm not sure your interpretation is right. I think that what he means by "these alles production are more than those w/o the mutation" is in fact that these mutations occur de novo at a higher frequency in populations to which they would be beneficial. This seems the logical interpretation since that is what Shadow71 has been arguing for the entire rest of the thread. Admittedly the sentence is so badly written it is hard to tell exactly what Shadow is wrong about, apart from the Darwin bit of course which you nailed. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Hi WK - I think you're right, sorry Taq.
Gee, and I thought Shadow was taking a step toward understanding what really happens. Too bad. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Maybe because those are the beneficial mutations necessary for the system. Engineering systems are designed to be specific and not wasteful. In this case, it is wasteful. 1,999,999,998 bacteria do not get the mutation they need while only 2 do. Those other bacteria are also acquiring mutations in genes that do not need them. I would hazard a guess that there are more examples of mutations which result in death than there are beneficial mutations. It is wasteful, by every measure. You would actually have a better chance of winning the random Powerball lottery than a bacteria has for getting the mutation it needs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
In this case, it is wasteful. 1,999,999,998 bacteria do not get the mutation they need while only 2 do. Those other bacteria are also acquiring mutations in genes that do not need them. I would hazard a guess that there are more examples of mutations which result in death than there are beneficial mutations. It is wasteful, by every measure. You would actually have a better chance of winning the random Powerball lottery than a bacteria has for getting the mutation it needs. I don't think your conclusion is right.The 1,999,999,998 bacteria is the right number for an environment that the organism has lived for long time and maybe will live for long time still. and again the 2 is the right number as nature history proves.No waste at all.Nature knows well what is doing. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I don't think your conclusion is right.The 1,999,999,998 bacteria is the right number for an environment that the organism has lived for long time and maybe will live for long time still. and again the 2 is the right number as nature history proves.No waste at all.Nature knows well what is doing. The number should actually be 999,999,998. I don't know why I put the 1 in front. I got 2 and 1 billion confused I guess. However, the point stands that the authors only measured 2 leuB- reversions per billion bacteria in an environment lacking leucine. That is the observation. Therefore, the other 999,999,998 bacteria did not get the mutation they needed. You actually have a better chance of winning the Powerball lottery than these bacteria do of winning the leuB- reversion lottery. So how can this be an engineered response when 99.9999998% of the bacteria fail to produce the correct mutation? Why does this engineered response have a 99.9999998% failure rate? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3739 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Taq writes:
Wouldn't that be a worse design decision than putting spare-tyres in only 0.0000002% of cars? So how can this be an engineered response when 99.9999998% of the bacteria fail to produce the correct mutation?Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Wouldn't that be a worse design decision than putting spare-tyres in only 0.0000002% of cars? Or worse than an airbag that only deploys in 0.0000002% of accidents?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024