Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do you really understand the mathematics of evolution?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 76 of 239 (877099)
06-04-2020 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Kleinman
06-03-2020 7:29 PM


Re: Trying to give nwr more than a vague understanding of DNA evolution
In the single selection pressure case, the evolutionary steps are independent. Each step is a new binomial probability problem independent of the previous step and a new sample space occurs for each step. You can see this in the Kishony experiment, mutations A1 and A2 occur in separate drug-concentration regions and these regions correspond to the mathematical sample spaces.
I was under the impression that you were combining the antibiotics into one region which would require adaptations to both drugs in order to adapt to the single new region. Is this not the case? This would mean that even if we get a mutation for resistance against one of the drugs, that mutation won't be selected for.
You can do that but then you are not talking about evolution. You are talking about migration.
How is the genetic variation within a population not a factor in evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Kleinman, posted 06-03-2020 7:29 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Kleinman, posted 06-04-2020 12:11 PM Taq has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 77 of 239 (877101)
06-04-2020 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Taq
06-04-2020 11:26 AM


Re: Trying to give nwr more than a vague understanding of DNA evolution
Kleinman writes:
In the single selection pressure case, the evolutionary steps are independent. Each step is a new binomial probability problem independent of the previous step and a new sample space occurs for each step. You can see this in the Kishony experiment, mutations A1 and A2 occur in separate drug-concentration regions and these regions correspond to the mathematical sample spaces.
Taq writes:
I was under the impression that you were combining the antibiotics into one region which would require adaptations to both drugs in order to adapt to the single new region. Is this not the case? This would mean that even if we get a mutation for resistance against one of the drugs, that mutation won't be selected for.
Your impression is correct and the same mathematics for DNA evolution to 2 drugs applies for the case if a single drug is used but the step increase between regions requires 2 mutations for adaptation. And you are correct, in either case, if a member of the population has only one of the two mutations necessary for growth in the next higher concentration region when two correct mutations are required, that member with only a single mutation would be selected out.
Kleinman writes:
You can do that but then you are not talking about evolution. You are talking about migration.
Taq writes:
How is the genetic variation within a population not a factor in evolution?
If you want to talk about the genetic variation of the entire world-wide population of e coli, you have to do that in the context of the different environments that the different populations are evolving. I don't know how large that world-wide population is but for the sake of discussion, assume it is 1e20. And let's assume that these bacteria are growing in a vast idealized environment such as Kishony's drug-free region. Then, using the mathematics I've presented, you can calculate the diversity of that population if it was a vast single colony as a function of the mutation rate. But that vast idealized environment doesn't exist. In the real world, there are many selection pressures such as thermal stress, starvation, toxins, dehydration, competition from other replicators, predation, etc. These selection pressures reduce the diversity of populations, reducing or eliminating those variants that don't have sufficient reproductive fitness.
So, bringing a drug-resistant variant of e coli will change the behavior of the Kishony experiment for that particular drug but it doesn't change the fundamental physics and mathematics of DNA evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Taq, posted 06-04-2020 11:26 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Taq, posted 06-05-2020 10:44 AM Kleinman has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 78 of 239 (877130)
06-05-2020 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Kleinman
06-04-2020 12:11 PM


Re: Trying to give nwr more than a vague understanding of DNA evolution
Kleinman writes:
If you want to talk about the genetic variation of the entire world-wide population of e coli, you have to do that in the context of the different environments that the different populations are evolving.
We could talk about the population of E. coli in a single person's gut, if we wanted to. Would you agree that the genetic variation of the E. coli population in your gut is probably greater than that used in the Kishony experiment? Doesn't the starting genetic variation of a population affect how that population evolves, and how the math of population genetics applies to it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Kleinman, posted 06-04-2020 12:11 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Kleinman, posted 06-05-2020 11:59 AM Taq has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 79 of 239 (877135)
06-05-2020 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Taq
06-05-2020 10:44 AM


Re: Trying to give nwr more than a vague understanding of DNA evolution
Kleinman writes:
If you want to talk about the genetic variation of the entire world-wide population of e coli, you have to do that in the context of the different environments that the different populations are evolving.
Taq writes:
We could talk about the population of E. coli in a single person's gut, if we wanted to. Would you agree that the genetic variation of the E. coli population in your gut is probably greater than that used in the Kishony experiment? Doesn't the starting genetic variation of a population affect how that population evolves, and how the math of population genetics applies to it?
You are correct, the carrying capacity of our gut is greater than the Kishony experiment. What that means is that there is a high probability of drug-resistant variants already in that environment. The way to correctly address this was described by Edward Tatum in his 1958 Nobel Laureate lecture:
Edward Tatum – Nobel Lecture - NobelPrize.org
Edward Tatum writes:
In microbiology the roles of mutation and selection in evolution are coming to be better understood through the use of bacterial cultures of mutant strains. In more immediately practical ways, mutation has proven of primary importance in the improvement of yields of important antibiotics — such as in the classic example of penicillin, the yield of which has gone up from around 40 units per ml of culture shortly after its discovery by Fleming to approximately 4,000, as the result of a long series of successive experimentally produced mutational steps. On the other side of the coin, the mutational origin of antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms is of definite medical significance. The therapeutic use of massive doses of antibiotics to reduce the numbers of bacteria which by mutation could develop resistance, is a direct consequence of the application of genetic concepts. Similarly, so is the increasing use of combined antibiotic therapy, resistance to both of which would require the simultaneous mutation of two independent characters.
As an important example of the application of these same concepts of microbial genetics to mammalian cells, we may cite the probable mutational origin of resistance to chemotherapeutic agents in leukemic cells44, and the increasing and effective simultaneous use of two or more chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of this disease.
For many years, the standard of care taught in medical schools has been the use of single-drug therapy for the treatment of infectious diseases. In most cases, this works ok if the patient being treated has a good functioning immune system which removes any of the resistant variants that the antibiotic does not. But, if the patient has a poorly function immune system, single-drug therapy, especially at low doses is the formula for selecting for drug-resistant variants and treatment failure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Taq, posted 06-05-2020 10:44 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Taq, posted 06-05-2020 12:27 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 80 of 239 (877136)
06-05-2020 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Kleinman
06-05-2020 11:59 AM


Re: Trying to give nwr more than a vague understanding of DNA evolution
Kleinman writes:
You are correct, the carrying capacity of our gut is greater than the Kishony experiment. What that means is that there is a high probability of drug-resistant variants already in that environment.
We also have to be careful not to fall victim to the Sharpshooter fallacy. It is entirely possible for a new mutation to be neutral in one genetic background and beneficial in another genetic background. This beneficial phenotype would be dependent on two mutations.
So how many neutral mutations can become beneficial mutations when combined with new mutations? I don't think we can really know this number for any genome. If there are millions of possible beneficial interactions, then it isn't surprising that a beneficial phenotype emerges that requires two mutations, one of which is neutral all by itself. It would be incorrect to draw a bulls eye around this phenotype and then claim that it is highly improbable that such a trait emerged.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Kleinman, posted 06-05-2020 11:59 AM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Kleinman, posted 06-05-2020 1:05 PM Taq has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 81 of 239 (877138)
06-05-2020 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Taq
06-05-2020 12:27 PM


Re: Trying to give nwr more than a vague understanding of DNA evolution
Kleinman writes:
You are correct, the carrying capacity of our gut is greater than the Kishony experiment. What that means is that there is a high probability of drug-resistant variants already in that environment.
Taq writes:
We also have to be careful not to fall victim to the Sharpshooter fallacy. It is entirely possible for a new mutation to be neutral in one genetic background and beneficial in another genetic background. This beneficial phenotype would be dependent on two mutations.
What you are missing is that with a mutation rate of 1e-9 that with 3e9 replications that you have shot at every target possible and hit each target on average once somewhere in the population. And what that means, for example, in the Kishony experiment that you are going to have some member of that population with a beneficial mutation for the Ciprofloxacin environment and a different member of the population with a beneficial mutation for trimethoprim. What determines whether either of these mutations are beneficial is the environment in which that variant is trying to grow.
Taq writes:
So how many neutral mutations can become beneficial mutations when combined with new mutations? I don't think we can really know this number for any genome. If there are millions of possible beneficial interactions, then it isn't surprising that a beneficial phenotype emerges that requires two mutations, one of which is neutral all by itself. It would be incorrect to draw a bulls eye around this phenotype and then claim that it is highly improbable that such a trait emerged.
Sure you can know. Again, using the Kishony experiment as the example, we know that in that population of 3e9 that there about 13.8 million variants. The vast majority of those variants cannot grow in the regions where there are drugs. So the vast majority of mutations will be neutral or detrimental. To determine how many beneficial mutations there are would require genetic sequencing. Here is a paper where describes this:
https://www.brown.edu/...Publications/Weinreich_etal2006.pdf
Note that Weinreich makes an error in the fundamental mathematics of DNA evolution (which was not recognized by the peer-reviewers) by stating that each step on the evolutionary trajectory requires fixation
Weinreich writes:
Thus, the relative probability of realizing any particular mutational trajectory is the product of the relative probabilities of its constituent mutations, because under our assumption the choice of each subsequent fixation is statistically independent of all previous fixations (12).
The Kishony experiment shows that claim is incorrect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Taq, posted 06-05-2020 12:27 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 06-05-2020 4:39 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 82 of 239 (877157)
06-05-2020 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Kleinman
06-05-2020 1:05 PM


Re: Trying to give nwr more than a vague understanding of DNA evolution
Kleinman writes:
What you are missing is that with a mutation rate of 1e-9 that with 3e9 replications that you have shot at every target possible and hit each target on average once somewhere in the population. And what that means, for example, in the Kishony experiment that you are going to have some member of that population with a beneficial mutation for the Ciprofloxacin environment and a different member of the population with a beneficial mutation for trimethoprim. What determines whether either of these mutations are beneficial is the environment in which that variant is trying to grow.
There is a universe that exists outside of the Kishony experiment.
Sure you can know. Again, using the Kishony experiment as the example, we know that in that population of 3e9 that there about 13.8 million variants. The vast majority of those variants cannot grow in the regions where there are drugs.
Antibiotic resistance isn't the only beneficial adaptation that exists in the universe. I would also suspect that there are examples of antibiotic resistance where there are multiple mutated bases that can give rise to the same phenotype.
I would also agree that a mutation doesn't have to reach fixation in order to interact with new mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Kleinman, posted 06-05-2020 1:05 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Kleinman, posted 06-05-2020 5:19 PM Taq has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 83 of 239 (877161)
06-05-2020 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Taq
06-05-2020 4:39 PM


Re: Trying to give nwr more than a vague understanding of DNA evolution
Kleinman writes:
What you are missing is that with a mutation rate of 1e-9 that with 3e9 replications that you have shot at every target possible and hit each target on average once somewhere in the population. And what that means, for example, in the Kishony experiment that you are going to have some member of that population with a beneficial mutation for the Ciprofloxacin environment and a different member of the population with a beneficial mutation for trimethoprim. What determines whether either of these mutations are beneficial is the environment in which that variant is trying to grow.
Taq writes:
There is a universe that exists outside of the Kishony experiment.
Do you think that DNA evolution works differently outside of the Kishony experiment? Outside of the Kishony experiment, there a multiple simultaneous selection pressures. Do you think that DNA evolution works more efficiently under those circumstances? Even in the simple Kishony experiment, it takes exponentially more replications for adaptation to occur if 2 drugs are used and likewise if the increase in drug concentration is too large between bands, the population is facing the same mathematical constraints. So what, elsewhere in the universe changes these mathematical facts of life?
Kleinman writes:
Sure you can know. Again, using the Kishony experiment as the example, we know that in that population of 3e9 that there about 13.8 million variants. The vast majority of those variants cannot grow in the regions where there are drugs.
Taq writes:
Antibiotic resistance isn't the only beneficial adaptation that exists in the universe. I would also suspect that there are examples of antibiotic resistance where there are multiple mutated bases that can give rise to the same phenotype.
It is quite likely that in that 13.8 million variants in the Kishony experiment, there is a variant that would have improved fitness for the Lenski experiment. And sure, you can have different variants that achieve resistance to a given selection pressure. These different variants will have the same phenotype but each of these variants will have taken their own particular evolutionary trajectory to achieve their particular genotype. That is what the Weinreich paper is all about. And each step for each of these different evolutionary trajectories will require about 3e9 replications.
Taq writes:
I would also agree that a mutation doesn't have to reach fixation in order to interact with new mutations.
You do understand that if the different variants in a population are forced to compete in a limited carrying capacity environment will slow DNA evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 06-05-2020 4:39 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 06-08-2020 10:38 AM Kleinman has not replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 84 of 239 (877201)
06-08-2020 9:28 AM


Does competition accelerate DNA evolution?
Does competition and fixation accelerate DNA evolution? If it does, why do the Lenski team say this:
Just a moment...
When large asexual populations adapt, competition between simultaneously segregating mutations slows the rate of adaptation and restricts the set of mutations that eventually fix.
And what is wrong with what they are saying here?

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Taq, posted 06-08-2020 10:42 AM Kleinman has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 85 of 239 (877203)
06-08-2020 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Kleinman
06-05-2020 5:19 PM


Re: Trying to give nwr more than a vague understanding of DNA evolution
Kleinman writes:
Do you think that DNA evolution works differently outside of the Kishony experiment?
Not all adaptations are the same.
Outside of the Kishony experiment, there a multiple simultaneous selection pressures. Do you think that DNA evolution works more efficiently under those circumstances?
I think it is relatively rare for there to be only a single substitution mutation within the entire genome that will confer increased fitness in a given environment.
You do understand that if the different variants in a population are forced to compete in a limited carrying capacity environment will slow DNA evolution?
I understand that just fine. Evolution is very Malthusian in that there will be winners and losers, and this is true of neutral mutations as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Kleinman, posted 06-05-2020 5:19 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 86 of 239 (877204)
06-08-2020 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Kleinman
06-08-2020 9:28 AM


Re: Does competition accelerate DNA evolution?
Kleinman writes:
Does competition and fixation accelerate DNA evolution?
That needs context. If we are talking about positive or negative selection, then competition does change the rate of fixation for those mutations under selection.
If it does, why do the Lenski team say this:
You tell us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Kleinman, posted 06-08-2020 9:28 AM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Kleinman, posted 06-08-2020 11:33 AM Taq has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 87 of 239 (877208)
06-08-2020 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Taq
06-08-2020 10:42 AM


Re: Does competition accelerate DNA evolution?
Kleinman writes:
Do you think that DNA evolution works differently outside of the Kishony experiment?
Taq writes:
Not all adaptations are the same.
What is the mathematical difference between different adaptations? Does DNA evolution work differently between the Kishony and Lenski experiments?
Kleinman writes:
Outside of the Kishony experiment, there a multiple simultaneous selection pressures. Do you think that DNA evolution works more efficiently under those circumstances?
Taq writes:
I think it is relatively rare for there to be only a single substitution mutation within the entire genome that will confer increased fitness in a given environment.
You still haven't mastered the mathematics for DNA evolution to a single selection pressure and only a single beneficial mutation that improves fitness. If you think have mastered that math, tell us how the math changes if there are two or more possible beneficial mutations which give improved fitness to a given selection pressure.
Kleinman writes:
You do understand that if the different variants in a population are forced to compete in a limited carrying capacity environment will slow DNA evolution?
Taq writes:
I understand that just fine. Evolution is very Malthusian in that there will be winners and losers, and this is true of neutral mutations as well.
Do you understand that fine enough to explain it mathematically? To make that question more specific, how do carrying capacity, selection conditions, and mutation rates affect the DNA evolution mathematical behavior of the Lenski experiment?
Kleinman writes:
Does competition and fixation accelerate DNA evolution?
Taq writes:
That needs context. If we are talking about positive or negative selection, then competition does change the rate of fixation for those mutations under selection.
You are conflating two different physical phenomena. Competition and fixation and DNA evolution are distinctly different phenomena. And you as well as Lenski don't understand that. That is why you cannot put evolution in the correct mathematical context.
Kleinman writes:
If it does, why do the Lenski team say this:
Taq writes:
You tell us.
Let's put my question in the correct context by posting the entire quote:
Kleinman writes:
Does competition and fixation accelerate DNA evolution? If it does, why do the Lenski team say this:
Just a moment...
Lenski Team writes:
When large asexual populations adapt, competition between simultaneously segregating mutations slows the rate of adaptation and restricts the set of mutations that eventually fix.
You should understand what is wrong with Lenski's statement. Start with the first five words of the sentence, "When large asexual populations adapt". Are Lenski's populations large? You have already pointed out that our gut has even larger populations. And your calculation for adaptation for the Kishony experiment requires 3e9 replications. So, now try to explain why his populations adapt so slowly. Show your math.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Taq, posted 06-08-2020 10:42 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 06-08-2020 12:23 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 88 of 239 (877214)
06-08-2020 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Kleinman
06-08-2020 11:33 AM


Re: Does competition accelerate DNA evolution?
Kleinman writes:
What is the mathematical difference between different adaptations?
The number of possible beneficial mutations would be a good start.
You still haven't mastered the mathematics for DNA evolution to a single selection pressure and only a single beneficial mutation that improves fitness. If you think have mastered that math, tell us how the math changes if there are two or more possible beneficial mutations which give improved fitness to a given selection pressure.
If there are more possible beneficial mutations then you need fewer divisions in order to see an increase in fitness.
Do you understand that fine enough to explain it mathematically? To make that question more specific, how do carrying capacity, selection conditions, and mutation rates affect the DNA evolution mathematical behavior of the Lenski experiment?
Why don't you tell us?
Competition and fixation and DNA evolution are distinctly different phenomena.
Say what?
Why do we see sequence conservation within exons when we compare genomes between species, but a lack of sequence conservation in introns?
So, now try to explain why his populations adapt so slowly. Show your math.
You first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Kleinman, posted 06-08-2020 11:33 AM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Kleinman, posted 06-08-2020 2:57 PM Taq has replied

  
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 2142
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 89 of 239 (877218)
06-08-2020 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Taq
06-08-2020 12:23 PM


Re: Does competition accelerate DNA evolution?
Kleinman writes:
What is the mathematical difference between different adaptations?
Taq writes:
The number of possible beneficial mutations would be a good start.
Do the math for the simplest case, assume there are only 2 possible beneficial mutations.
Kleinman writes:
You still haven't mastered the mathematics for DNA evolution to a single selection pressure and only a single beneficial mutation that improves fitness. If you think have mastered that math, tell us how the math changes if there are two or more possible beneficial mutations which give improved fitness to a given selection pressure.
Taq writes:
If there are more possible beneficial mutations then you need fewer divisions in order to see an increase in fitness.
That's the kind of vague answer I would expect from nwr and AZPaul3. Do the math that predicts how many fewer divisions in order to see an increase in fitness.
Kleinman writes:
Do you understand that fine enough to explain it mathematically? To make that question more specific, how do carrying capacity, selection conditions, and mutation rates affect the DNA evolution mathematical behavior of the Lenski experiment?
Taq writes:
Why don't you tell us?
Why don't you try first? I'll even give you a hint on how to do the math. Consider the case of 2 possible beneficial mutations. What is the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring at least once at those possible sites?
Kleinman writes:
Competition and fixation and DNA evolution are distinctly different phenomena.
Taq writes:
Say what?
Why do we see sequence conservation within exons when we compare genomes between species, but a lack of sequence conservation in introns?
You probably won't understand this but competition and fixation is a first law of thermodynamics process and DNA evolution is a second law of thermodynamics process. And I don't know what you are seeing with introns and exons. You barely understand the basic principles of DNA evolution to single selection pressure.
Kleinman writes:
So, now try to explain why his populations adapt so slowly. Show your math.
Taq writes:
You first.
I've already published the math. You can find it here:
Just a moment...
And you should understand why DNA evolution is slowed in a competitive environment. You have already shown that it takes 3e9 replications for a beneficial mutation to occur. So, when you have a populations such as Lenski's populations where many variants are competing for a fixed amount of glucose, that will limit the number of replications for all variants. Then, the most fit variant must drive to extinction the less fit variants in order to have sufficient resources for that most fit variant in that particular lineage to accumulate its 3e9 replications for the next beneficial mutation.
Now try to do the math for two or more possible beneficial mutations and learn why this has very minimal effect on the DNA evolution process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 06-08-2020 12:23 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Taq, posted 06-08-2020 6:29 PM Kleinman has replied
 Message 95 by vimesey, posted 06-09-2020 3:42 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 90 of 239 (877229)
06-08-2020 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Kleinman
06-08-2020 2:57 PM


Re: Does competition accelerate DNA evolution?
Kleinman writes:
Do the math for the simplest case, assume there are only 2 possible beneficial mutations.
It would take half as many divisions.
Why don't you try first?
It would be nice to see some reciprocation.
You probably won't understand this but competition and fixation is a first law of thermodynamics process and DNA evolution is a second law of thermodynamics process.
All of biology boils down to thermodynamics, as do all physical processes. In a simplistic model, energy flows from the Sun to photsynthesizers to herbivores to carnivores. There is about 10% energy transfer at each trophic level. The total energy is limited in our solar system, and energy can't increase in our isolated solar system. Imperfect replicators competing for limited resources is what drives evolution.
And I don't know what you are seeing with introns and exons. You barely understand the basic principles of DNA evolution to single selection pressure.
When you compare functional genes between species you will see fewer differences between exons than you will introns. I understand selective pressures just fine.
And you should understand why DNA evolution is slowed in a competitive environment.
"Slower" is a relative term. What are you comparing to? Are you comparing it to a population that increases exponential towards infinity?
You have already shown that it takes 3e9 replications for a beneficial mutation to occur. So, when you have a populations such as Lenski's populations where many variants are competing for a fixed amount of glucose, that will limit the number of replications for all variants.
The number of replications is the same per culture because they are observed to reach the same density, and are started from the same number of bacteria.
Then, the most fit variant must drive to extinction the less fit variants in order to have sufficient resources for that most fit variant in that particular lineage to accumulate its 3e9 replications for the next beneficial mutation.
You are assuming that the mutations have to come in a specific order. If there are multiple beneficial mutations then you can have a mix of those beneficial mutations in the population simultaneously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Kleinman, posted 06-08-2020 2:57 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Kleinman, posted 06-08-2020 7:46 PM Taq has replied
 Message 92 by Kleinman, posted 06-09-2020 9:15 AM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024