|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Try message 96. Epigenetic changes are involved in both fetal alcohol syndrome and type 2 diabetes.
Thanks!( So Epigenetic changes CAN CAUSE detrimental or neutral changes.) In a schematic way we have two theories: random mutations vs guided/random mutations. If epigenetic changes are guided by environment then you shouldn't need natural selection. You only need natural selection to separate the good from the bad/neutral. The same for actual mutations. If mutations are guided by environment then why would you need natural selection? You would only need natural selection if mutations are random with respect to fitness. Both epigenetic changes and guided actual mutations are producing a broad variety of changes from detrimental to beneficial, though the first, in much less numbers needed fo be produced by random mutations (economy principle) to hit the target to be selected for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I disagree. You should be able to use comparisons of genomes between species to model past evolutionary events. If mutations are guided then it should show up in this data. It doesn't. Instead, we see mutations accumulating in junk DNA at rates that are consistent with neutral drift. Neutral drift is a HUGE piece of evidence for random mutations. Even more, we see a lower rate of accumulation for mutations in coding regions. This strongly evidences negative selection that is eliminating deleterious mutations.
As my idea/theory foresees detrimental-neutral mutations the main issue bedomes the comparison numbers of these mutations. That could give us a clue and not their simple existance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
There are environments that are stable over several generations, and these environments do not cause the same mutation in all members of the population over a single generation. The pocket mouse example given in another thread is a perfect example. You can find the paper here:
Is there any mistake here Taq? It is like talking me, not you. You sorely are talking about mutations and not epigenetic changes? Of course you will say that the random mutations with natural selection was the mechanism to have those changes. But again such a language! Was there adequate time for the random mutations to get established? Can we count the deleterious or neutral mutations had taken place on this process? That would help us to make some deductions about guided or not mutations. Just a moment... In this example, the pocket mice evolved a darker fur color as a camoflage adaptation in areas with dark basalt lava. There were several areas of lava separated by large areas of dried grass that strongly disfavored the dark color. What did they observe? DIFFERENT MUTATIONS OCCURRED IN EACH OF THESE DARK POPULATIONS. The dark color was not due to the same mutation in these differen populations. This is slam dunk evidence for random mutations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Thanks fo relating me the classic evolution Theory! Maybe the following will make you to think a bit beyond it
There are environments that are stable over several generations, and these environments do not cause the same mutation in all members of the population over a single generation. The pocket mouse example given in another thread is a perfect example. You can find the paper here: Just a moment... In this example, the pocket mice evolved a darker fur color as a camoflage adaptation in areas with dark basalt lava. There were several areas of lava separated by large areas of dried grass that strongly disfavored the dark color. What did they observe? DIFFERENT MUTATIONS OCCURRED IN EACH OF THESE DARK POPULATIONS. The dark color was not due to the same mutation in these differen populations. This is slam dunk evidence for random mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Random mutations is so a lucrative idea, that even the term "classic" could be gifted nonnderservantly to this theory, which fitted so well to the psychologic needs of 17-18 century.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
It was not known whether or not mutations were truly random until the 20th century. That is why Luria, Delbruck, and the Lederbergs did the experiments that they did.
No. Until 20th century there was the blind belief, due to Darwin's authority. Now Luria's etc observations unwarantly again had been aplied to metazoans.The same story is continued. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
There is the article:Emerging principles of regulatory evolution
1. Benjamin Prud'homme * , , 2. Nicolas Gompel , , and 3. Sean B. Carroll * , "These principles endow regulatory evolution with a vast creative potential that accounts for both relatively modest morphological differences among closely related species and more profound anatomical divergences among groups at higher taxonomical levels. "These regulatory mechanisms are to me clear indications of non randomness in evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You seem to ignore and distort my thesis:It is about random mutations vs guided AND RANDOM mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
DNA regulation is not DNA mutation. They are two different things.
Which are linked and one is following the other It is temporarily only a belief , not much different than yours. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
So, in order to establish the case that mutations are guided by the environment via epigenetic changes it needs to be established that: 1. The environment can target specific places in the genome for epigenetic change.2. Those epigenetic changes can target specific mutations within that region. 3. Those targeted mutations increase the fitness of the individual. From these three terms the 1. is ,I suppose, by any body accepted.Term 2 : The targeted mutations are bound to increase fitness, as there are from the start chosen by environment to meet special needs. So in fact it remains only the 2, term. I have said many times that time scale makes it almost impossible ( for the moment) to identify such guidance in mutations. It is exactly the same reason that no direct evidence of random mutations in metazoans, even after 150 ys of intense research and effort. Any relevant deductions are just hair pulled. In view of works that show different states of regulations in metazoans and the principle of economy, guidance of mutations vs random is the most propable. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Radiometric dating puts the lava flows at about 2 million years old. With 4 generations per year that puts it at 8 million generations of mice. That seems adequate to me.
You dinn't take into account that these mice had already evolved not today but many millions of ys ago. So your calculations are definitely wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
So if you think the DNA copying process in a unicellular organisms can experience random errors while that in multicellular organisms cannot then you have to provide your evidence or at least a rationale. Taq is already asking you for this evidence, and I agree that you need to provide it.
There is the article:Emerging principles of regulatory evolution
The above work , among many others, shows the possible mechanism that guided mutations follow. When in a epigenetic area , through long periods of epigenetic changes, relevant regulations are havily placed one upon others, ( and this phenomenon is a FACT), we onlly can expect as an inevitable sequence, the replacement of that complex and and energy expensive situation, with an act a Gordian knot solution , which is the somehow, but not strict, guided mutation. 1. Benjamin Prud'homme * , , 2. Nicolas Gompel , , and 3. Sean B. Carroll * , "These principles endow regulatory evolution with a vast creative potential that accounts for both relatively modest morphological differences among closely related species and more profound anatomical divergences among groups at higher taxonomical levels. " These regulatory mechanisms are to me clear indications of non randomness in evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
How does DNA regulation guide mutations? Please cite evidence for this claim. There is the article:Emerging principles of regulatory evolution1. Benjamin Prud'homme * , , 2. Nicolas Gompel , , and 3. Sean B. Carroll * , "These principles endow regulatory evolution with a vast creative potential that accounts for both relatively modest morphological differences among closely related species and more profound anatomical divergences among groups at higher taxonomical levels. " These regulatory mechanisms are to me clear indications of non randomness in evolution. The above work , among many others, shows the possible mechanism that guided mutations follow. When in a epigenetic area , through long periods of epigenetic changes, relevant regulations are havily placed one upon others, ( and this phenomenon is a FACT), we onlly can expect as an inevitable sequence, the replacement of that complex and and energy expensive situation, with an act a Gordian knot solution , which is the somehow, but not strict, guided mutation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
The mechanism that the authors cite is random mutations in cis-regulatory elements (CRE's) that give rise to novel regulatory pathways that are the passed through natural selection.
The authors just express their fixed belief in randomness ( or could they dare to do otherwise?).They don't bring any new evidence for it. But what kind of random mutatayions are they that are chosen to happen on predetermined places in order to...? Maybe it is time to redefine random mutations. In any case i think they are describing a mechanism of epigenetic changes causing new mutations. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In contrast, a CRE that is functional in a given tissue already contains some of the sites necessary to direct gene expression in that tissue, and therefore it represents a more likely template to accommodate a new expression pattern in that tissue, because a relatively shorter evolutionary path would lead to functional novelty. Consequently, it seems more probable that a novel gene expression pattern in a tissue will arise from random mutations creating binding sites in the vicinity of an existing CRE driving expression in that tissue than from mutations in nonfunctional DNA. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You seem to support a totally illogical situation: You now forced by the evidence to accept that epigenetic changes, inherited to many generations, accompanied with a lot of regulating mechanisms, loaded in specific epigenetic genome places, you are by your theory obliged to the illogical conclusion that, sudenly due to a random mutation(s) , that leads propably evolution to different direction, are all wiped out and go astray. Even if this paradox genome mutation could happen, evolution remains guided by environment, not only by the process of selection, but also by energetic environmental guidance, through epigenetics intervention, because epigenetic changes dictated by long standing envronmental changes can not be wiped out.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024