molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
These percentages speak for themselves: the major part of Drosophila genes does not vary at all! They are completely stable!

---

Assuming the conclusion quoted above whether correct or not, why is this a problem?The flies happened upon a combination that works and has continued to work for millions of years. As long as it works it will be selected for, thus dampening the genetic drift/mutation. Please note that the gene studied is of UNKNOWN function not 'has no function'.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
That may be so, but as convincingly demonstrated in this reference it violates randomness and thus falsifies NDT.

---

No it doesn't, not if that particular gene has been SELECTED FOR all these millions of years. Has it been selected for? I don't know, and apparantly neither does anyone else at the moment, since the function of the gene is unknown.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear John,

​

Thanks for you response, but you are wrong.
According to the authors: Almost none of the amino acid positions may be under strong selective constraint, because the fraction of polymorphic sites in the intron is comparable to the fraction of polymorphic sites in the coding region. In addition, they say that a comparison between fixed and polymorphic sites between the two species shows also no significant deviation from the assumption of a neutral evolution in this region.

​

Thus, this gene is not under selective constraint and has not been selected for during millions of years. Unless you would like to assume neutral selection. I have posted a couple of e-mails to evolutionary theorist to figure out what they exacly mean by neutral selection. None of them responded, demonstrating the current problem in NDT.

​

If you have a solution, please let me know.
Peter

---

It seems that this thread has been picked up by Percipient who is doing a better job of it than I could, but two things came to mind after reading your last reply to me.The first is that this gene may be linked to other genes which are under selective pressure. One of the authors, Tautz, proposes this possibility in another paper. He refers to it as a weak selection.The second is that even assuming this gene has not been under selective pressure and has not mutated, you still have not proven your point. There is no minimum random mutation rate per gene. You have one gene in one organism, this is one case in many. You could be looking at a fluke. A run of luck at the roulette wheel does not prove the odds have changed.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[b]Linkage to genes that improve survival/fitness will still imlpy that redundant genes should change more rapidly.[/QUOTE][/b]How? Why?

quote:

---

If there is no link between redundancy and gene stability it implies that additional (unknown) mechanisms in genetic stability (and mutation) are involved.

---

I have no doubt that there are mechanisms as yet unknown to us. But how does this help you?

quote:

---

I already gave you quite a shock with the 1G5 gene.

---

Well, no, sorry. You must try harder to shock me. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Mark,
Why are bananas bended?

---

I once recieved a pamplet from a Baptist Church explaining that banana's are bent because that way they fit nicely into our hands. I'm not joking. I wish I had kept the pamplet.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear John,
As a matter of fact bananas are bent by gravity.
Cheers,
Peter

​

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 07-24-2002]

---

I knew there was something wrong with that hand hypothesis... Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com