Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-19-2019 10:18 PM
23 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, Tanypteryx (3 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,617 Year: 6,654/19,786 Month: 1,195/1,581 Week: 17/393 Day: 17/30 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   scientific end of evolution theory (2)
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 2991 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 197 of 214 (17391)
09-13-2002 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by derwood
09-13-2002 2:52 PM


quote:

Nobody 'requires' it. Kimura formulated it and tested his hypotheses regarding it due to his observations of amino acid substituion.

This isn’t entirely accurate, or at least is not telling the whole story. Kimura formulated the neutral theory because the mathematics did not support NeoDarwinian evolution, not because of direct observation of amino acid substitution. I’m sure you’ve seen this important snippet before:

“Under the assumption that the majority of mutant substitutions at the molecular level are carried out by positive natural selection, I found that the substitutional load in each generation is so large that no mammalian species could tolerate it. … This was the main argument used when I presented the neutral mutation-drift hypothesis of molecular evolution” – The Neutral theory of Molecular Evolution, Kimura 1983, p 26 [via W. Remine, p 239]

The neutral theory was formulated to combat Haldane’s Dilemma, plain and simple. Haldane (1957, p 520-521) illustrates clearly the problem. He gives an example showing how increasing selection has a negative proportional impact on fitness. He had to slow evolution to a crawl (n = 300 generations per substitution under positive selection) to keep fitness at reasonable levels. He plugged in 7.5 generations and showed that fitness was reduced to e^-4, which he correctly called “hardly compatible with survival (it means 109 offspring required per breeding couple just to maintain constant population size!).

Of course recent data has exacerbated the problem, with unwitting support from Scott. See http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm and note the last addendum item at the bottom. Thanks Scott!

[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 09-13-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by derwood, posted 09-13-2002 2:52 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by peter borger, posted 09-15-2002 9:38 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 204 by derwood, posted 09-17-2002 11:00 AM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019