Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
544 online now:
nwr, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 541 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,284 Year: 4,930/14,102 Month: 528/707 Week: 83/176 Day: 12/34 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation
John Jones
Junior Member (Idle past 3580 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 08-05-2011


Message 46 of 296 (628470)
08-09-2011 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Taq
08-06-2011 10:20 PM


[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. )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Taq, posted 08-06-2011 10:20 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Panda, posted 08-09-2011 7:33 PM John Jones has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 08-09-2011 9:35 PM John Jones has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 08-10-2011 12:05 PM John Jones has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 47 of 296 (628472)
08-09-2011 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by John Jones
08-09-2011 6:53 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by John Jones, posted 08-09-2011 6:53 PM John Jones has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20254
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 48 of 296 (628480)
08-09-2011 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by John Jones
08-09-2011 6:53 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by John Jones, posted 08-09-2011 6:53 PM John Jones has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 49 of 296 (628557)
08-10-2011 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by John Jones
08-09-2011 6:53 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by John Jones, posted 08-09-2011 6:53 PM John Jones has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by shadow71, posted 09-01-2011 6:59 PM Taq has responded

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1924 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 50 of 296 (631560)
09-01-2011 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Taq
08-10-2011 12:05 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 08-10-2011 12:05 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 09-01-2011 7:18 PM shadow71 has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 51 of 296 (631565)
09-01-2011 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by shadow71
09-01-2011 6:59 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by shadow71, posted 09-01-2011 6:59 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by shadow71, posted 09-01-2011 7:55 PM Taq has responded
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 09-01-2011 9:47 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1924 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 52 of 296 (631576)
09-01-2011 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Taq
09-01-2011 7:18 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 09-01-2011 7:18 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 09-06-2011 8:37 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20254
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 53 of 296 (631600)
09-01-2011 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Taq
09-01-2011 7:18 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 09-01-2011 7:18 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Wounded King, posted 09-02-2011 4:43 AM Percy has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3085 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 54 of 296 (631629)
09-02-2011 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
09-01-2011 9:47 PM


I'm not so sure
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 09-01-2011 9:47 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 09-02-2011 7:10 AM Wounded King has not yet responded
 Message 65 by shadow71, posted 09-12-2011 2:59 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20254
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 55 of 296 (631640)
09-02-2011 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Wounded King
09-02-2011 4:43 AM


Re: I'm not so sure
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Wounded King, posted 09-02-2011 4:43 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


(1)
Message 56 of 296 (632287)
09-06-2011 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by shadow71
09-01-2011 7:55 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by shadow71, posted 09-01-2011 7:55 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by zi ko, posted 09-09-2011 3:32 PM Taq has responded

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2610 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 57 of 296 (632721)
09-09-2011 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Taq
09-06-2011 8:37 PM


beneficial mutations
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 09-06-2011 8:37 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Taq, posted 09-09-2011 6:22 PM zi ko has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 58 of 296 (632735)
09-09-2011 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by zi ko
09-09-2011 3:32 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by zi ko, posted 09-09-2011 3:32 PM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Panda, posted 09-09-2011 6:37 PM Taq has responded
 Message 61 by zi ko, posted 09-10-2011 1:32 AM Taq has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 59 of 296 (632736)
09-09-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Taq
09-09-2011 6:22 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
Taq writes:

So how can this be an engineered response when 99.9999998% of the bacteria fail to produce the correct mutation?


Wouldn't that be a worse design decision than putting spare-tyres in only 0.0000002% of cars?

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Taq, posted 09-09-2011 6:22 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Taq, posted 09-09-2011 7:51 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 60 of 296 (632747)
09-09-2011 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Panda
09-09-2011 6:37 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Panda, posted 09-09-2011 6:37 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021