May 9th, 2008, 05:52 AM
not so much Evolution ,as the "Origin of species by natural
selection".
Trouble is, will the Darwinian fundamentalists ( as Gould referred
to them as) try and kill me before i can publish in a peer-reviewed
journal?
How can I promulgate my work in the face of academic fascism?
Darwinian fundamentalists do not exist. The theory of evolution and natural selection exactly as it was proposed by Darwin is no longer in use, and has been updated and replaced by the modern synthesis. Please keep this in mind.
I'd be interested to hear how you plan to disprove natural selection.
In this, I am also interested.I'd be interested to hear how you plan to disprove natural selection.
Me too.Originally Posted by Evaporation
I must let you know this: I accept Evolution 100%.
But Natural selection as a mechanism for evolution is flawed.
It has been known for some time ( biologists relunctantly accepted it by default in the 1930s). It remains the principal means of evolution amongst academics: Drift, the founder effect, and others are not considered valid alone.
Now, I have verifiable and testable proof that it not only cannot be the agent of evolutionary change but, on a genetic level, actually leads to terrible consequences.
I will publish this of course in the Journal of Theoretical Biology but if
you want a copy in advance and would like to say to your kids and grand kids "I was among the first to know", I will happily email you the proof.
Email it to me at da.metal.head@hotmail.com
I wish to see the proof. [ Or you could just post it on the forums I suppose..]
May 9th, 2008, 08:43 AM
Its a little too big and I don't want to publish widely just yet...but
I will certainly email it to individuals like yourself.
There is a simulation as well....but I am reluctant to send it on until
it has been perfected and I have run all of the tests.
I will send you the science behind it.
A flaw in a theory and disproving it entirely are not exactly the same thing. There is always debate and research about the exact workings of the mechanisms of evolution - that is nothing new. You say it leads to terrible consequences - does it do so necessarily? 100% of the time? Are these consequences only terrible on a certain timescale?
I must let you know this: I accept Evolution 100%.
But Natural selection as a mechanism for evolution is flawed.
It has been known for some time ( biologists relunctantly accepted it by default in the 1930s). It remains the principal means of evolution amongst academics: Drift, the founder effect, and others are not considered valid alone.
Now, I have verifiable and testable proof that it not only cannot be the agent of evolutionary change but, on a genetic level, actually leads to terrible consequences.
You mean, you will apply to have it published and a group of peer reviewers will decide whether or not it should be published. Please do email me this proof: basilisk@gmail.com.I will publish this of course in the Journal of Theoretical Biology but if
you want a copy in advance and would like to say to your kids and grand kids "I was among the first to know", I will happily email you the proof.
A flaw in a theory and disproving it entirely are not exactly the same thing. There is always debate and research about the exact workings of the mechanisms of evolution - that is nothing new. You say it leads to terrible consequences - does it do so necessarily? 100% of the time? Are these consequences only terrible on a certain timescale?
I must let you know this: I accept Evolution 100%.
But Natural selection as a mechanism for evolution is flawed.
It has been known for some time ( biologists relunctantly accepted it by default in the 1930s). It remains the principal means of evolution amongst academics: Drift, the founder effect, and others are not considered valid alone.
Now, I have verifiable and testable proof that it not only cannot be the agent of evolutionary change but, on a genetic level, actually leads to terrible consequences.
You mean, you will apply to have it published and a group of peer reviewers will decide whether or not it should be published. Please do email me this proof: basilisk@gmail.com.I will publish this of course in the Journal of Theoretical Biology but if
you want a copy in advance and would like to say to your kids and grand kids "I was among the first to know", I will happily email you the proof.
Yes, I do fear that prejudice will stand it my way and that there are too many people with too much to lose....imagine all the books on natural selection that have been written!
Are you saying that natural selection does not contribute to evolution?
I must let you know this: I accept Evolution 100%.
But Natural selection as a mechanism for evolution is flawed.
It has been known for some time ( biologists relunctantly accepted it by default in the 1930s). It remains the principal means of evolution amongst academics: Drift, the founder effect, and others are not considered valid alone.
Now, I have verifiable and testable proof that it not only cannot be the agent of evolutionary change but, on a genetic level, actually leads to terrible consequences.
I will publish this of course in the Journal of Theoretical Biology but if
you want a copy in advance and would like to say to your kids and grand kids "I was among the first to know", I will happily email you the proof.
If your science is solid, it will stand the test of any prejudice. Good scientists will accept it.
What a bullshit.
As if you can disprove natural selection in a theoretical paper.
You Sir, are full of shit.
May 9th, 2008, 09:05 AM
Are you saying that natural selection does not contribute to evolution?[/quote]
I am saying that natural selection or more specifically growth by selection leads to genetic disorientation and even meltdown rather than evolution.
What??? you may say....yes...really....that is what I have found.
What I have also found is that academics way more knowledgeable than me have deliberately avoided finding this out..although part of it is that it is a little difficult.
The whole thing stinks of a mass cover up.
There is much power, too much money at stake.
growth by selection?
What is that supposed to be?
Nothing grows in evolution in the first place.
Now now...language my dear man!
Look, natural selection IS a theoretical observation..there is
no empirical observation of it.......the best we get are
population fluctuations in moths and those that Darwin
cited in the Origin of Species. Noone has actually seen
speciation by natural selection ( although we are probably
not in a position to do so).
What we have seen in the lab is adaptation by directed
mutation as with bacteria and yeast.....NOT chance mutations
being favored by selective processes. This has been known
for the last 20 years.
It is more like a best guess than a verified and proven hypothesis.
On the level of the gene and allelic frequencies, natural
selection is flawed when you factor in the necessary
variables.
It means selective growth as opposed to normal growth
in populations.
Growth due to the enhanced reproductive capabity of
the selected phenotype.
growth in populations?
What? you mean population increase?
Selective vs normal growth?
There is no difference mate. Or in other words, these concepts don't exist.
If there was non-selective growth, the earth would be covered in animals, bacteria and plants within a year to a thickness of probably a few hundred meters or much more.
You miss the point entirely. Normal growth accounts for disease, natural disasters, predation etc.... selective growth is when a phenotype favored by Nature spreads its genes more than for the rest of the population.
I am dropping hint after hint...but you are not getting it......
BIG CLUE: The Mutational Load
No more clues.
May 9th, 2008, 09:37 AM
You should spend less time gloating and conspiracy-theory-talking, and more time explaining your proof. You are clearly active online right now but have yet to email me anything as I requested.
I would also like you to clarify exactly what you mean by selective vs normal growth of a population. Just because some individuals in the population have greater reproductive success than others doesn't mean that the population as a whole will necessarily increase in size over time.
May 9th, 2008, 09:40 AM
You should spend less time gloating and conspiracy-theory-talking, and more time explaining your proof. You are clearly active online right now but have yet to email me anything as I requested.
I am saying that natural selection or more specifically growth by selection leads to genetic disorientation and even meltdown rather than evolution.
What??? you may say....yes...really....that is what I have found.
What I have also found is that academics way more knowledgeable than me have deliberately avoided finding this out..although part of it is that it is a little difficult.
The whole thing stinks of a mass cover up.
There is much power, too much money at stake.
I would also like you to clarify exactly what you mean by selective vs normal growth of a population. Just because some individuals in the population have greater reproductive success than others doesn't mean that the population as a whole will necessarily increase in size over time.[/quote]
I am at work , my dear man..... I shall send it to you within 24 hours...
but you are not getting the simulation until you read the article.
I'd rather send it all at once to everybody.
Thanks for your interest
You obviously don't get the theory of evolution and you have no chance to publish anything.
You miss the point entirely. Normal growth accounts for disease, natural disasters, predation etc.... selective growth is when a phenotype favored by Nature spreads its genes more than for the rest of the population.
I am dropping hint after hint...but you are not getting it......
BIG CLUE: The Mutational Load
No more clues.
disease, natural disasters, predation are part of natural selection.
Honestly, read a text book on biology before you try to disprove something. And then go through the specialized peer-reviewed literature. It's not as if you stand a chance of publishing if you don't. Not because scientists feel threatened. But because you have send them a turd.
Along with Spurious, I'm having less and less confidence in your ability to "disprove" natural selection. Creationists and IDers like to claim that over time mutational load will make populations inviable, but to claim such a thing is to ignore the counteraction of selectional load, and is inaccurate. I hope this is not what your "disproof" is based on.
You obviously don't get the theory of evolution and you have no chance to publish anything.
You miss the point entirely. Normal growth accounts for disease, natural disasters, predation etc.... selective growth is when a phenotype favored by Nature spreads its genes more than for the rest of the population.
I am dropping hint after hint...but you are not getting it......
BIG CLUE: The Mutational Load
No more clues.
disease, natural disasters, predation are part of natural selection.
Honestly, read a text book on biology before you try to disprove something. And then go through the specialized peer-reviewed literature. It's not as if you stand a chance of publishing if you don't. Not because scientists feel threatened. But because you have send them a turd.
LOL! Er...its actually called DRIFT . Chance events such as natural disasters or being at the wrong place at the wrong time when the predator is around is called "survival of the luckiest" "not "survival of the fittest".
There is some overlap, I grant you as you can be fit enough to avoid the predator, but popluation growth is controlled by drift mostly...certainly as far as gene frequencies are concerned.
Why do Darwinist always resort to such ad hominem, personal attacks
when they sense they are losing the argument???
Why the acrimony and acerbic comments.
Along with Spurious, I'm having less and less confidence in your ability to "disprove" natural selection. Creationists and IDers like to claim that over time mutational load will make populations inviable, but to claim such a thing is to ignore the counteraction of selectional load, and is inaccurate. I hope this is not what your "disproof" is based on.
Very good....you've done your homework!
But that is not my point at all.....its not the level of mutational load as a whole that is an issue, it is the frequency of individual gene
members....I am giving it away!...wait for the article.
Btw, the selectional load is not what you meant..you meant the effect of negative selection on delterious alleles...selection load is used in Haldane's dilemma
I sense a lack of understanding of basic evolutionary concepts. Natural disasters are NOT drift. Genetic drift is the result of the random distribution of genes in offspring. For example, it is possible that the parents may be genotypes Aa and aa, and that ALL of their surviving offspring are aa. Thus the A allele is lost completely, due to random chance.
Nor are natural disasters necessarily and entirely random acts of selection. A flood may wipe out many animals but a few, with the strength and determination to do so, may fight to swim to the surface of the water and survive to reach a dry area. A rumbling volcano may alert those individuals smart enough to realize something bad is about to go down, so they leave the area. Yes, some natural disasters do result in 100% random selection, but not all of them, and just because it is random does not mean it is genetic drift.
I have been waiting for the article. You have yet to send it.Along with Spurious, I'm having less and less confidence in your ability to "disprove" natural selection. Creationists and IDers like to claim that over time mutational load will make populations inviable, but to claim such a thing is to ignore the counteraction of selectional load, and is inaccurate. I hope this is not what your "disproof" is based on.
Very good....you've done your homework!
But that is not my point at all.....its not the level of mutational load as a whole that is an issue, it is the frequency of individual gene
members....I am giving it away!...wait for the article.
Btw, the selectional load is not what you meant..you meant the effect of negative selection on delterious alleles...selection load is used in Haldane's dilemma
Are you saying that individual deletrious genes will increase in frequency in the population until the population becomes inviable? That sounds like the same thing to me.
And from what I understand, a population is considered to have a selection load if there alleles in the population that infer different levels of fitness. So yes, I meant selection load. A population with deletrious alleles will still have other beneficial alleles.
I sense a lack of understanding of basic evolutionary concepts. Natural disasters are NOT drift. Genetic drift is the result of the random distribution of genes in offspring. For example, it is possible that the parents may be genotypes Aa and aa, and that ALL of their surviving offspring are aa. Thus the A allele is lost completely, due to random chance.
Nor are natural disasters necessarily and entirely random acts of selection. A flood may wipe out many animals but a few, with the strength and determination to do so, may fight to swim to the surface of the water and survive to reach a dry area. A rumbling volcano may alert those individuals smart enough to realize something bad is about to go down, so they leave the area. Yes, some natural disasters do result in 100% random selection, but not all of them, and just because it is random does not mean it is genetic drift.
Well, well well...so drift has nothing to do with gene frequencies!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
If a volcano destroys all people of AB blood by chance and leaves
only those with type A would you not say that that was an example
of how drift can change gene frequencies?
Btw, strenght and determination are not necessarily down to genetic advantage...it could be down to being better nourished or being older...
or being in the right place at the right time.
Don't worry, everyone is going to get it mailed to them.
Let's cool the debate...you are right...every time there
is talk about evolution it become political and personal.
Put down those meat cleavers! Its not worth it!
I think the following article might be of interest to you.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...evolution.html
Interesting. What makes you think that I said that?
That's an example of how a natural disaster can change gene frequencies. Genetic drift changes gene frequencies due to the chance distribution of alleles in offspring.If a volcano destroys all people of AB blood by chance and leaves
only those with type A would you not say that that was an example
of how drift can change gene frequencies?
Not necessarily, no. That's why I said natural disasters are not necessarily random. Nor is being better nourished necessarily not related to genetic advantage. It could mean your parents were better food providers, you yourself are a better hunter/forager/competitor for food. And perhaps you were able to survive to such an age as you did thanks to those and other advantageous genes you had.Btw, strenght and determination are not necessarily down to genetic advantage...it could be down to being better nourished or being older...
or being in the right place at the right time.
There are no politics or personal injunctions here. I am attempting to determine the nature of your disproof as well as the factual knowledge base upon which you are founding your ideas. In a scientific discussion this is more than appropriate.
May 9th, 2008, 10:34 AM
Academics 'more knowledgeable than you' likely don't understand what it is that you are trying to say.
What is genetic disorientation, please?
What is meltdown, in this context, please?
Selection leads to alteration in allele frequencies within populations. This is established, demonstrable, reproducible, and unsurprising. Changes in allele frequency contribute to evolution.
What in heaven does this mean?
Interesting. What makes you think that I said that?
That's an example of how a natural disaster can change gene frequencies. Genetic drift changes gene frequencies due to the chance distribution of alleles in offspring.If a volcano destroys all people of AB blood by chance and leaves
only those with type A would you not say that that was an example
of how drift can change gene frequencies?
Not necessarily, no. That's why I said natural disasters are not necessarily random. Nor is being better nourished necessarily not related to genetic advantage. It could mean your parents were better food providers, you yourself are a better hunter/forager/competitor for food. And perhaps you were able to survive to such an age as you did thanks to those and other advantageous genes you had.Btw, strenght and determination are not necessarily down to genetic advantage...it could be down to being better nourished or being older...
or being in the right place at the right time.
There are no politics or personal injunctions here. I am attempting to determine the nature of your disproof as well as the factual knowledge base upon which you are founding your ideas. In a scientific discussion this is more than appropriate.
I take your points in hand but hereditary advantages are not always as important chance...
imagine in a nest there is a mutant with superior night vision...his older
( and stronger) brother decides there is not enough room in the nest for both ( this nest ain't big enough for the both of us!)...and throws him out
of the best and the gene responsible for the superior vision "dies" with it.
But anyway, we digress......
Yes, some variants may be less susceptible to the effects of chance events than others but this assumes that there always exist such variants..it also assumes that such variation is inheritable.....working out in the gym and building muscle probably won't mean that your children are muscular.
The fact that non-genetic determinants affect phenotype has very little bearing on the fact that genetic determinants affect phenotype.
Yes, but speciation by drift alone is virtually impossible in populations lessI think the following article might be of interest to you.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...evolution.html
than 100.
Sounds almost philosophical.
This is complete nonsense, natural selection can be tested and observed, there is no stronger proof than that.
You take a population of bacteria, 1x10^6 cells, treat them with an antibiotic, 1000 will survive by chance through having mutations that make them antibiotic resistant. Wait 2-3 days the entire population has become antibiotic resistant. Natural selection has occured.
Replace the antibiotic with any other selective pressure that is not too harsh that it will eliminate everything and the same thing will occur.
Actually, my proof is limited to animals who reproduce sexually.
But you are quite wrong about bacteria. The last 20 years of
research has shown that bacteria mutate in far greater frequencies
when subjected to an adverse environment...this is known as
adapative/selective/non-random or directed mutations.
The fact that the famous "nylonase" case has since been
repeated again and again with relatively small numbers
of bacteria proves that they have the innate ability to
change themselves and are not subject to any form of
selection. Selective pressure induce variation rather just
promoting the frequency of variation
They have also been observed in yeast and some animal cells.
The mutations are anything but chance......
of course, you probably don't want to know about this.
You don't even understand what you're saying. Some bacteria have been shown to increase activities that result in increase in mutations when expossed to starvation conditions. This is an adaptation that has evolved to allow bacteria to be highly adaptable. The mutations are still random, the bacteria is just promoting more mutations.
Actually, my proof is limited to animals who reproduce sexually.
But you are quite wrong about bacteria. The last 20 years of
research has shown that bacteria mutate in far greater frequencies
when subjected to an adverse environment...this is known as
adapative/selective/non-random or directed mutations.
The fact that the famous "nylonase" case has since been
repeated again and again with relatively small numbers
of bacteria proves that they have the innate ability to
change themselves and are not subject to any form of
selection. Selective pressure induce variation rather just
promoting the frequency of variation
They have also been observed in yeast and some animal cells.
The mutations are anything but chance......
of course, you probably don't want to know about this.
Edit: To add more to this, once the bacteria have gained a mutation that allows them to get nutrients from the environment the hypermutation will stop and the bacteria will have a competitive advantage against the other bacteria and outcompete them. Thus the bacteria who do not gain a beneficial mutation in time will be selected against.
You don't even understand what you're saying. Some bacteria have been shown to increase activities that result in increase in mutations when expossed to starvation conditions. This is an adaptation that has evolved to allow bacteria to be highly adaptable. The mutations are still random, the bacteria is just promoting more mutations.
Actually, my proof is limited to animals who reproduce sexually.
But you are quite wrong about bacteria. The last 20 years of
research has shown that bacteria mutate in far greater frequencies
when subjected to an adverse environment...this is known as
adapative/selective/non-random or directed mutations.
The fact that the famous "nylonase" case has since been
repeated again and again with relatively small numbers
of bacteria proves that they have the innate ability to
change themselves and are not subject to any form of
selection. Selective pressure induce variation rather just
promoting the frequency of variation
They have also been observed in yeast and some animal cells.
The mutations are anything but chance......
of course, you probably don't want to know about this.
That's a tired and old theory : that bacteria can mutate when "stressed"...there is no evidence for that...there may well be a mechanism that links the environment to the DNA on the chromosomes but mutations in bacteria are NOT random...if they were then one would expect much higher death rates as mutations are mostly harmful...certainly frameshifts.
Btw, there is another point: MULLER'S RATCHET:
In an asexual population evolving by natural selection everyone is descended from one common ancestor whose delterious genes get
passed on no matter what...a steady accumulation of those would
result that would lead to mutational meltdown.
It is not a tired and old theory with no evidence it has plenty of evidence.
And Muller's Ratchet doesn't apply to bacteria because of recombination, also the probably of negative mutations being carried forward decreases drastically in small genomes.
Some original experiments were due to changes in copy number of the gene being tested, not increases in mutation rate. Some original experiments looked at changes in certain catabolic enzymes that were, for the sake of experimental design, carried on plasmids, and the copy number of the gene under study was higher per cell under starvation conditions than accounted for. Mutation rate remained constant.
Roth (UC Davis) is worth a look. For example:
From the time of Darwin until about 1950, a controversy continued over whether selective stress induces mutations or only affects the relative reproductive success of organisms with different genotypes (30). The controversy was resolved by the classic experiments of Luria and Delbrück (27) and of Lederberg and Lederberg (25), who showed that some bacterial mutants arise prior to application of the selection that allows their detection and thus could not have been caused by selective conditions. However, these experiments used lethal selections and therefore did not eliminate the possibility that another fraction of total mutations might be formed in response to stress and be detected only by nonlethal selection. Shapiro and Cairns et al. reopened the controversy by pointing out this caveat and presenting data that seemed to support stress-induced mutation (7, 45).
Because very few genetic systems behave in ways that suggest stress-induced mutation, the rare cases that seem to exhibit such behavior have attracted close attention. In one case, mutants were later shown to preexist selection (14, 28, 29, 44). For the system devised by Cairns and Foster (5), we suggest that reversion occurs by a multistep process initiated prior to selection and the appearance of stress-induced mutagenesis results from growth under strong selection.
http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/full/186/15/4855
Whether stress can lead to increased mutation rate is still entirely possible, but some of the evidence for this seeming phenomenon is artifactual.
Well some evidence suggests it.
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/5/...Pseudomonas%22
And
"Environmental stresses may lead to selection for hypermutator bacterial cells, which have an increased chance of generating beneficial variants. With stress removal, cost of mutation exceeds the fitness advantage, selecting against hypermutators. Hypermutators arise through several mechanisms, including inactivation of mismatch repair genes (MMR) or induction of error-prone polymerases. Helicobacter pylori may provide an alternative mechanism of stress-induced mutagenesis, since it lacks the MMR genes and errorprone polymerases found in other bacterial species, and possesses an endogenously high mutation frequency. In this study, we expose H. pylori strains to reactive oxygen species and reactive nitrogen species, stressors found in their natural environment. These exposures directly resulted in elevated rates of spontaneous point mutation, deletion between direct repeats, and intergenomic recombination. We demonstrate that these effects are transient and do not involve selection for hypermutator strains. That H. pylori possesses direct repeats in regions where potential gene rearrangements can occur suggests a mechanism for targeted mutation in response to stress that avoids the deleterious fitness costs of fixed hypermutation. These studies provide a new paradigm for adaptation under increased selective pressures that may be present in other prokaryotes. copyright FASEB."
Kang J.M., Iovine N.M., Blaser M.J. A paradigm for direct stress-induced mutation in prokaryotes. [Journal: Article] FASEB Journal. 20(14)(pp 2476-2485), 2006. Date of Publication: Dec 2006.
Edit: Moreover the process of hypermutation has been retained evolutionarilly if you look at how it occurs in a much more controlled fashion in mammalian B cells.
Edit2: Anyway whether stress induce hypermutation exists or not is not relevant to disproving natural selection because even if it did exist it would still involve natural selection.
Heliopolis
i had a quick read through your document, and i think i can spot one weakness in your discussion of an organism's genes, and that is that you seem to imply that natural selection acts on the genes rather than on the way they are expressed - while a "bad" gene may make it into the next generation by piggy-backing on a "favoured" gene, if its expression in the next generation then makes it less likely that the individual carrying the gene will either survive or reproduce, then the body containing both the "bad" and the "favoured" gene will be eliminated, thereby eliminating both genes from the gene pool
e.g. say someone has the genetic baggage to make him into a superb athlete, but at the same time has a double dose of the gene for sickle cell anemia is highly unlikely to make it to the point where he can show his athletic prowess, let alone pass them on to any potential offspring
You are correct and you have understood the principles of the paper very well.
Yes, the gene will be lost in homozygous form if it results in death...it may just mean having less offspring.
The point is that these "lethal" genes will have a tendency to bring the beneficial genes down with them and thus kill off the selection process
as well as themselves. It doesn't matter any more then.More mutations will reintroduce lethal alleles into the gene pool
I have also assumed that, against the balance of probabilties, the selected
allele does make it to fixation many slightly deleterious alleles will also be pulled up: Repeated bouts of selection will mean that they are inevitably raised to higher and higher frequencies such that mutational accumulation leads, eventually, to meltdown.
I will send you all a simulation to show this in action: It is VERY difficult to model a realistic mutational load and a mathematical model is exponentially harder.
I've found that any time a person talks of 'a mass cover up', 'too much money at stake' and 'prejudism on behalf of the mainstream standing in my way', you're very likely to have a good laugh.
bacteria reproduce sexually under stressful conditions similar to those mentioned.
Actually, my proof is limited to animals who reproduce sexually.
And that is a load of crap. The existence of sickle cell anemia disproves your statement. And moreover the persistent penetration of this mutation in certain populations show that it really doesn't matter if homozygotes have huge negative effects on the fitness. In this case the heterozygotes have huge positive effects. I.e. protection from Malaria.
You are correct and you have understood the principles of the paper very well.
Yes, the gene will be lost in homozygous form if it results in death...it may just mean having less offspring.
Even if an allele has a negative fitness effect in the recessive state it still won't be weeded out because the homozygote decreases fitness. Just look around you. It's frequency will be just limited.
I hope you do know that there is loads of actual factual data on change of gene frequencies in natural populations? Nobody will be impressed when you create a fictitious model that models your believes instead of reality.I have also assumed that, against the balance of probabilties, the selected
allele does make it to fixation many slightly deleterious alleles will also be pulled up: Repeated bouts of selection will mean that they are inevitably raised to higher and higher frequencies such that mutational accumulation leads, eventually, to meltdown.
I will send you all a simulation to show this in action: It is VERY difficult to model a realistic mutational load and a mathematical model is exponentially harder.
And that is a load of crap. The existence of sickle cell anemia disproves your statement. And moreover the persistent penetration of this mutation in certain populations show that it really doesn't matter if homozygotes have huge negative effects on the fitness. In this case the heterozygotes have huge positive effects. I.e. protection from Malaria.
You are correct and you have understood the principles of the paper very well.
Yes, the gene will be lost in homozygous form if it results in death...it may just mean having less offspring.
Even if an allele has a negative fitness effect in the recessive state it still won't be weeded out because the homozygote decreases fitness. Just look around you. It's frequency will be just limited.
I hope you do know that there is loads of actual factual data on change of gene frequencies in natural populations? Nobody will be impressed when you create a fictitious model that models your believes instead of reality.I have also assumed that, against the balance of probabilties, the selected
allele does make it to fixation many slightly deleterious alleles will also be pulled up: Repeated bouts of selection will mean that they are inevitably raised to higher and higher frequencies such that mutational accumulation leads, eventually, to meltdown.
I will send you all a simulation to show this in action: It is VERY difficult to model a realistic mutational load and a mathematical model is exponentially harder.
In my paper which you did NOT request to read, I explain about sickle cell anaemia and refer to it as near neutral rather than purely harmful. It has persisted in human populations because it confers some resistance to malaria in heterozygous form and MAY be lethal as a homozygote. It could well be that humans with the disorder are still reproducing. Humans do not live under the same law of selection as animals in a firecely competitive environment.....an animal with sickle cell anaemia would most
likely die prematurely.
As for the data: I have spoken to many professors about this and they admit that NOONE has modelled a realistic mutational load in all of its complexity...doing so would be very difficult...but because noone has done so, noone knows what its effects are on selection in general.
I really don't understand why you have to be so bitter and acerbic.
I still have not received a copy of your paper can you please send it ASAP to robbiethe3rd@yahoo.co.uk
with thanks.
I would like to say picking it apart would be useless, it is not anymore solid or unstable than what Darwin said but its not exactly revoltionary. It is somewhat interesting, but I am really it is not any more valid then the modern evoultionary theory.
Ophiolite in moderator mode:
Spurious, no matter how well founded your reservations about Heliopolis's ideas may turn out to be, can you please at least try to fake some respect.
Heliopolis, references to conspiracies and vested interests and the like, weaken your position, not strengthen it. Let you argument stand or fall by the facts, not the paranoia.
Thank you.
Ophiolite
I am waiting to read the paper before forming an opinion.
Yes I have STILL not received it if anyone has it (Heliopolis have you dsiappeared?) please send it to me at robbiethe3rd@yahoo.co.uk
I have resent it to you...maybe its going into your bulk folder.
ok there's a few things, firstly what are you studying in college!?
I think your understanding of natural selection is not particularly deep and you fail to understand the role of the environment in certain aspects of your paper. the below I think supports this e.g.
You also refer to zoology describing extremes of slight loss of fitness resulting in either death of the organism or compensation allowing survival believing your position lies in between the two. The reality depends on environmental factors and this has been demonstrated in many examples e.g. the finch where tiny variations in the size of the beak may act as a selection device when nuts run short.However, this is a poor model to use for gene-centric speciation as it implies repeated culling of the population, a reduction in genetic diversity, and an increase in the chances of inbreeding and even of extinction due to drift.
As for arguments of genetic linkage and loci, I believe these are technical obstacles to natural selection which may make certain properties more improbable, but by no means impossible; natural selection would still be the predominant mechanism.
I think you have proven yourself that natural selection plays a huge role and your experiment, (I dont know the technicalities of how it was run) may well have been bias in your favour.The results are not pre-determined and are unlikely to show natural selection failing all of the time or the accumulation of certain member genes of the load. This is due to limitations in the simulation that I have described.
Finally, you refer to Darwin's evolution by natural selection. Natural selection although a HUGE factor in evolution is not the only mechanism. There are also phenotypic behavioral changes which may occur randomly and change the direction of selection with no natural role and ideas such as sexual selection which produces erratic features in various animals; evolutionists have described many mechanisms other than natural selection which contribute to evolutionary theory without anyone needing to rewrite how natural selection works or the role it plays.
PS do you intend to have references for the paper?
I think you are point-scoring, quoting out of context, and not arguing properly.
Yes, I intend to have references: this was more of a discussion/illustration than a scholarly paper.
The basis for my research is that linkage disequilbria cannot be prevented by recombination ( although permanent hitchhiking can be) and that genes at deleterious background loci linked to beneficial alleles will impair the effectiveness of natural selection, probably completely.
I will send you the simulation but I have the honesty to admit that I cannot code for the full extent of the mutational load in a population...I do not have the computational means to do so...what I can offer is an indication
and not a definitive proof......yet.
This point disturbed me greatly. Heliopolis responded that this was merely a discussion paper, but Heliopolis, that seems to me a weak excuse. Any proper research begins with a review of prior work in the relevant area, so that references become - from the outset - an integral part of the research. Secondly, you make specific assertions, presumably based upon other research, yet do not substantiate these in any way. e.g. Humans carry normally at least 6 harmful alleles .
By way of illustration I am working on, for my own amusement, a document that explores the role of cooperation in evolution. It is currently about the same length as your own paper, yet I have accumulated thirty nine references.
The reason this absence of references makes me so uncomfortable is that it hints at poor methodology. If your approach is suspect in this very simple aspect, how might it be in more critical areas?
Now you could rightly reply that the important thing is the data and analysis and interpretations you offer, not how they are presented. You would be correct. (I shall study these in more detail.) However, when sloppy presentation is combined with veiled references to vested interests and the like, then you minimise the possibility that anyone is going to take your ideas seriously.
This point disturbed me greatly. Heliopolis responded that this was merely a discussion paper, but Heliopolis, that seems to me a weak excuse. Any proper research begins with a review of prior work in the relevant area, so that references become - from the outset - an integral part of the research. Secondly, you make specific assertions, presumably based upon other research, yet do not substantiate these in any way. e.g. Humans carry normally at least 6 harmful alleles .
By way of illustration I am working on, for my own amusement, a document that explores the role of cooperation in evolution. It is currently about the same length as your own paper, yet I have accumulated thirty nine references.
The reason this absence of references makes me so uncomfortable is that it hints at poor methodology. If your approach is suspect in this very simple aspect, how might it be in more critical areas?
Now you could rightly reply that the important thing is the data and analysis and interpretations you offer, not how they are presented. You would be correct. (I shall study these in more detail.) However, when sloppy presentation is combined with veiled references to vested interests and the like, then you minimise the possibility that anyone is going to take your ideas seriously.
Don't worry: I reckon I have about 150 potential references.....
I am not going to divulge the real deal until it is done and I won't be emailing it to others anyway: it will be going to some journal.
My draft paper is to test the waters and so far, it seems, people don't know how to respond to my research or they try and obfuscate in a petty and pedantic way which shows that they are point scoring and not debating as is what I hoped would be the case.
(i) it can be prevented by recombination and will stop the existence of deleterious genes. You still have to question how a deleterious gene would be allowed to come into existence, if it is so harmful the animal/organism would not survive in a competitive environment. You're set up is wrong. You have also not given any real examples of where this is true/observed.The basis for my research is that linkage disequilbria cannot be prevented by recombination ( although permanent hitchhiking can be) and that genes at deleterious background loci linked to beneficial alleles will impair the effectiveness of natural selection, probably completely.
LOL! Sorry...Good grief man! Most mutations due to replication errors are not bi-allelic..they tend to be recessive and affect just one chromsome only. As such they are masked by the wild type and induce no loss of fitness in the phenotype..if you read my paper, you would have noticed that I mention that. As humans we carry loads of delterious recessive alleles ( all at various loci)....have you never heard of cystic fibrosis and other hereditary genetic disorders?
Recombination works both ways...Chromosmal crossovers can shuffle harmful genes away from the selected locus...and it can also shuffle them near to the selected locus. I mention this also in my paper.
Gene conversion can equally overwrite a beneficial allele whilst simultaneouly overwtrting a wild type with a harmful one.
Heliopolis, from the outset you have positioned yourself as though you not only expected to be rejected/ignored, but actually wanted this to happen, as though such rejection would in some way vindicate your position.
The truth may be far removed from that perception, nevertheless that is the perception you have created with your choice of remarks, examples of which include:
From your opening post:
Trouble is, will the Darwinian fundamentalists ( as Gould referred
to them as) try and kill me before i can publish in a peer-reviewed
journal?
How can I promulgate my work in the face of academic fascism?
I mean, Good Lord man, why don't you go stand in a freeway and shout at the oncoming traffic, 'Hit me you bastards, hit me'. If you genuinely want your ideas to be considered in an objective, scientific fashion, don't start the discussion with a pile of emotional whining.
Yes, I do fear that prejudice will stand it my way and that there are too many people with too much to lose
The whole thing stinks of a mass cover up.
There is much power, too much money at stake.
You may not be a nutter, but you would do well to consider that you sound like a nutter.
I am dropping hint after hint...but you are not getting it......
BIG CLUE: The Mutational Load
No more clues.
Science and the exposition of science is not about dropping hints or giving clues. You are not in some kindergarten playground here. If you wish for your ideas to be given serious consideration then you need to act seriously and drop this childish posturing.
Heliopolis, you may find this hard to accept, but I am on your side, but for you to be listened to you need to adopt a different approach to the presentation of your hypothesis. It is not too late.
Edit: Minor typographical errors corrected.
Cystic fibrosis only has one locus on chromosome 7 isnt it. And natural selection accounts for its existence as it has conferred resistnce to tb and cholera/similar GI viruses.
If you are trying to discuss multiple factors of different genes with different loci this is an obstacle for natural selection, but by no means disproves it, it only enhances the competitivity needed. But also as you mention, natural selection would rule out the development of harmful genes or at least keep them at reasonably low levels.
Heliopolis, from the outset you have positioned yourself as though you not only expected to rejected/ignored, but actaully wanted this to happen, as though such rejection would in some way vindicate your position.
The truh may be far removed from that perception, nevertheless that is the perception you have created with your choice of remarks, examples of which include:
From your opening post:
Trouble is, will the Darwinian fundamentalists ( as Gould referred
to them as) try and kill me before i can publish in a peer-reviewed
journal?
How can I promulgate my work in the face of academic fascism?
I mean, Good Lord man, why don't you go stand in a freeway and shout at the oncoming traffic, 'Hit me you bastards, hit me'. If you genuinely want your ideas to be considered in an objective, scientific fashion, don't start the discussion with a pile of emotional whining.
Yes, I do fear that prejudice will stand it my way and that there are too many people with too much to lose
The whole thing stinks of a mass cover up.
There is much power, too much money at stake.
You may not be a nutter, but you would do well to consider that you sound like a nutter.
I am dropping hint after hint...but you are not getting it......
BIG CLUE: The Mutational Load
No more clues.
Science and the exposition of science is not about dropping hints or giving clues. You are not in some kindergarten playground here. If you wish for your ideas to be given serious consideration then you need to act seriously and drop this childish posturing.
Heliopolis, you may find this hard to accept, but I am on your side, but for you to be listened to you need to adopt a different approach to the presentation of your hypothesis. It is not too late.
Ok pal....I shouldn't be doing this, but let me divulge the contents of a private email I received from Professor Rupert Sheldrake of Cambridge university who has been a victim of character assassination and whose book , a "New Science for Life" has been described as a "book fit for burning." ( where did I hear that before...was it Nazi Germany, maybe?):
"Yes, there’s a great deal of prejudice against research on psychic phenomena, but I encountered a great deal of prejudice about morphic resonance as well. It’s not as if one were readily accepted as a valid topic of scientific debate, and the other was not. Both activated the heresy-detection buttons in the defenders of orthodoxy.
I hope that you managed to show that standard population genetics theory is indeed flawed. But I suspect that if you do, someone will circumvent your arguments by quibbling over some tiny details and nothing much will happen."
What are you Studying in college?
Heliopolis, your response to my last post entirely misses the point. I do not deny the existence of prejudice amongst some (many) members of the scientific community. My point is that by beginning the presentation of your hypothesis with a predictive, emotional, unsubstantiated, claim that your hypothesis will suffer at the hands of such prejudice is not the best way to have your hypothesis get a fair hearing.
You are, in essence, saying "I'm pretty sure you bunch of conservative, narrow minded, set in your ways, conventional scientists are going to reject my ideas because it flouts fundamentalist evolutionary thinking in which too much time, money and effort have been invested to allow it to be overturned."
Do you really think that is the best way to get a fair hearing? Even if such a claim is true - which I doubt - then such emotional outbursts are not the way to tackle the problem.
Even within the confines of this thread you have offered contradictory statements: at one point you say you have proof of your hypothesis, at a later point you say you can't quite prove it yet. Do such contradictions instill confidence? I think not.
I would like to move on to discussion of your hypothesis itself, but before doing so I would like some acknowledgement that you are prepared to consider that your mode of presentation may not have been the best and that it would be better to reduce or eliminate the emotion and conspiracy theories from your expositions.
I am a computer scientist who has done some courses in bioinformatics.
Which is why I have decided to start a new thread which deals only with the science part.
Yes, whining doesn't help, but I need to remind people of the obstacles that science faces in the face of fundamentalists and vested interests who cannot countenance even slight deviation from orthodoxy.
ok I have no problem with the discussion on your idea, but it far from disproves natural selection, if anything all it does is describe it from a different perspective.
If i can come up with a mathematial model ...I may just be able to.
My simulation is limited in that I cannot possibly hope to model a
realistic mutational load.....I need a supercomputer to do that..
I am hoping that someone somewhere will come and help me out.
Btw, I am working with the world's no. 1 theoretical geneticist
on this one.....hopefully I can convince him to research it himself.
Well then hold on, you are claiming to have demonstrated that you can disprove natural selection. You have produced a paper which you have not yet referenced, which has not run properly yet and requires a supercomputer to do so... and you still expect a publishing now?
Do keep in contact with Prof Felsenstein then by all means!
When you say you have not developed a mathematical model make sure it is based on actual genetic/natural phenomena; not on a model destined to suit your hypothesis, otherwise it is a defunct model.
Similarly I would be careful not to be too dependant on claiming you're going to disprove "Darwin's" theory of natural selection (as an attack on non-existant fundamentalists of his!), that has been significantly built upon and changed since his time as Im sure you know.
What I have proven is the concept : my simulation indicates how natural selection could fail and on some tests it does fail due to the issues I mention.
The whole point of research is that other people can pick up the pieces and improve on it. Nothing is ever "perfect".
What I will prove mathematically is that Fisher's fundamental theorem of genetical natural selection is flawed as it fails to address the complexity of the mutational load utterly.....I will relegate it to a utopian, entirely theoretical example of how natural selection could work with such idealisitc conditions..
The hard reality will show that natural selection will always result in failure or cumulative loss of fitness and increasing rates of disease.
ok I still REALLY think you're wrong and over exaggerating the effect you think you've discovered.
Mutation rates, loads and distributions have been EXTENSIVELY researched and confirmed consistant with modern evolutionary theories (including natural selection), I'm sure you know this it was probably at least mentioned in one of your 150 references. I really doubt a theoretical model will be able to disprove or overturn the theories on this.
As for your hard reality; what do you propose as an alternative, you have explained nothing, only you dont believe evolution is possible... as of yet without proof.
Actually, we don't know how many deleterious alleles exist in a population.
We just know that they exist in significant amounts.
We all have 40,000 alleles of which maybe 5-50 are harmful.
But it can just take a single gene to be defective to be injurous or even lethal.
There are many good reasons besides genetics to not believe that natural selection is responsible for evolution ( and I am only covering one area of genetics).
Indeed, natural selection was opposed by the scientific establishment ,who quickly accepted the theory of evolution by common descent, for about 70 years.
There are alternatives: molecular drive, selective/directed mutations,
morphogenetic fields etc etc.
1. you contradict yourself.
First you state that we all have 5-50 alleles are harmful.
Secondly, you state that it takes only one defective gene to be injurious or even lethal.
Obviously you are wrong since we all get along fine and we all reproduce (on average) nicely.
No, a recessive allele isn't harmful. I guess you were referring to that. But your language is so unscientific and sloppy that you create arguments out of your own inaccuracies.
Nature doesn't give a shit about whether you think an allele is harmful. Cystic fibrosis is a deadly disease. A large percentage of the population carries the allele. So fucking what! Sometimes the recessive allele meets another and you got yourself a seriously affected individual. So what? Obviously it didn't stop this allele from spreading through the population.
I suggest you take a beginner course in population genetics. You seriously are lacking in basic knowledge and the basic tools of science; such as the scientific language.
totally agree, you're getting too caught up in the analysis without a good grounding of the subject to start.
1. you contradict yourself.
First you state that we all have 5-50 alleles are harmful.
Secondly, you state that it takes only one defective gene to be injurious or even lethal.
Obviously you are wrong since we all get along fine and we all reproduce (on average) nicely.
No, a recessive allele isn't harmful. I guess you were referring to that. But your language is so unscientific and sloppy that you create arguments out of your own inaccuracies.
Nature doesn't give a shit about whether you think an allele is harmful. Cystic fibrosis is a deadly disease. A large percentage of the population carries the allele. So fucking what! Sometimes the recessive allele meets another and you got yourself a seriously affected individual. So what? Obviously it didn't stop this allele from spreading through the population.
I suggest you take a beginner course in population genetics. You seriously are lacking in basic knowledge and the basic tools of science; such as the scientific language.
Yawn!....typical tripe from a pseudo-scientific Darwinist.
A single allele can be harmful in heterozygous form whether it is dominant or recessive......Huntington's disease is one such example.
We do carry a lot of recessive alleles which ,when they become homozygous, can kill us.
If you bothered to ask to read my paper you would realize that natural selection would increase the frequencies of certain deleterious alleles
by way of genetic hitchhiking. This in turn would mean that many beneficial alleles would be culled by background selection.
Having done 8 course units in population genetics, it is obvious you are out to insult and debate....but why am I not surprised?
Gentlemen,
the name calling stops now or I shut this baby down. Any disagreement over that send me a pm, don't pollute the thread further.
Thank you
Ophiolite in moderator mode.
I agree....I am sorry if I went off limits but I was clearly provoked by someone who isn't interested in debating.
I think I have exposed the sheer level of intolerance and prejudice
harboured by so many people out there.
Sorry but YOU are the one who doensn't understand genetics...you assumed that natural selection efficiently removes all harmful alleles from the gene pool...that is naive and shows that your knowledge is no better than a lay person.
No I understand basic mendelian principles as you're talking about; this explains the presence of many such disease today; fine. however, you havent really suggested anything new. In one sentence, how are you disproving natural selection?
Here is the sentence that disproves the genetical theorem of natural selection, as found in my draft:
"The aggregate effect of natural selection is to appreciate anomalies in the frequencies of individual gene members of the mutational load."
This has been completely overlooked by geneticists.
You mentioned Felsenstein...yes I am conversing with him..the man is
a freakin genius...absolutely....he has practically invented modern theoretical genetics.
But even he failed to understand that a chromosomal crossover can place a deleterious allele onto the same chromosome as a beneficial one. I pointed it out to him and there was just silence. Clearly, the population geneticists had though that recombination meant that the harmful alleles
would be shuffled away from the selected locus quite quickly and that would be that...there would be no danger of temporary hitchhiking, but I have shown that there is. I don't claim to be a genius but I can see where people, perhaps deliberately, have overlooked things.
I will send you a copy of my simulation and you will see what I mean.
Will you please rephrase that more lucidly.The aggregate effect of natural selection is to appreciate anomalies in the frequencies of individual gene members of the mutational load.
Explain concisely what you mean by: appreciate, anomalies & gene members I am confused as to whether you are referring to populations or individual organisms/ individual chromosomes.
Ok...
In my paper I focused on the greater reproductive capability of the selected phenotype....
In a normally growing population, you would expect that the frequencies of the variety of deleterious and near neutral alleles in the gene pool would remain fairly stable.
But if you have a population growing, partly by selection, you begin to see
anomalies ( distortions) in the frequencies of these mutators due to hitchhiking. This is because growth is now uneven: there are "bursts" of selective growth among certain individuals as the beneficial allele goes down the road towards fixation.
But the more a deleterious gene rises in frequency, the more likely it will
pull down the frequency of the selected gene....this is known as "backgorund selection".
Dear SunCity
Ok...
In my paper I focused on the greater reproductive capability of the selected phenotype....
In a normally growing population, you would expect that the frequencies of the variety of deleterious and near neutral alleles in the gene pool would remain fairly stable.
But if you have a population growing, partly by selection, you begin to see
anomalies ( distortions) in the frequencies of these mutators due to hitchhiking. This is because growth is now uneven: there are "bursts" of selective growth among certain individuals as the beneficial allele goes down the road towards fixation.
But the more a deleterious gene rises in frequency, the more likely it will
pull down the frequency of the selected gene....this is known as "backgorund selection".
I am not a population geneticist nor can I claim any great knowledge of it, but your explanation here of your thesis raised a question in my mind:
If, as you say, 'hitch-hiking' by deleterious alleles militates against the otherwise spreading and fixation of beneficial genes, how far does this hitch-hiking go?
We know that there are locus-based probabilities of recombination splitting or keeping genes together. But I didn't think there was ever probability 1 of two genes staying together - surely by definition it must be less than 1?
If so, would there not, in a growing population, be a higher probability of the linkage breaking in at least a small number of individuals who receive the combination?
If so, wouldn't that simply ensure that the offspring of these individuals (who have 'de-linked' the alleles) are the most fruitful and the most likely to have their genotype dominate the population?
So how would this lead to a population crash? And how would it negate the general idea of evolution through natural selection?
Dear SunCity
Ok...
In my paper I focused on the greater reproductive capability of the selected phenotype....
In a normally growing population, you would expect that the frequencies of the variety of deleterious and near neutral alleles in the gene pool would remain fairly stable.
But if you have a population growing, partly by selection, you begin to see
anomalies ( distortions) in the frequencies of these mutators due to hitchhiking. This is because growth is now uneven: there are "bursts" of selective growth among certain individuals as the beneficial allele goes down the road towards fixation.
But the more a deleterious gene rises in frequency, the more likely it will
pull down the frequency of the selected gene....this is known as "backgorund selection".
I am not a population geneticist nor can I claim any great knowledge of it, but your explanation here of your thesis raised a question in my mind:
If, as you say, 'hitch-hiking' by deleterious alleles militates against the otherwise spreading and fixation of beneficial genes, how far does this hitch-hiking go?
We know that there are locus-based probabilities of recombination splitting or keeping genes together. But I didn't think there was ever probability 1 of two genes staying together - surely by definition it must be less than 1?
If so, would there not, in a growing population, be a higher probability of the linkage breaking in at least a small number of individuals who receive the combination?
If so, wouldn't that simply ensure that the offspring of these individuals (who have 'de-linked' the alleles) are the most fruitful and the most likely to have their genotype dominate the population?
So how would this lead to a population crash? And how would it negate the general idea of evolution through natural selection?
Yes, recombination will ensure that no two loci ( except if they are very close) will remain together.
However, crossovers can add deleterious alleles as well as remove them from association with the selected locus. Thus noone can be "de-linked".
This creates temporary genetic linkage....it is not as bad as permanent linkage but you have to bear in mind that the sheer balance of probabilites means that the frequency of some delterious allleles will increase faster than negative selection can act against them.
Natural selection is a classic case of the harmful effect of monopoly ( at the gene level).
I've skimmed the Desai et al paper, Helopolis. Can you explain which part of it supports your contentions. I'm afraid I'm blinded by their constant references to natural selection at work. That is not a subtly worded sarcasm; I really don't see a match between their work and your hypothesis. I assume you are pointing to some particular finding that provides support of your interpretation, but which finding is it?
Sorry, which paper are you referring to?...can you give
me a link as I don't always remember the authors.
You gave three links some time back that you said demonstrated one of your points. This paper was the first of the three.
Michael M. Desai and D.S.Fisher "Beneficial Mutation–Selection Balance and the Effect of Linkage on Positive Selection"
Ah right....well, these papers show that genetic linkage is recognized to be a limiting factor on natural selection that can even subvert it...the Gerrish paper uses that word.
However, they all claim that this is so only when recombination is ineffective...I claim in my paper that while recombination mitigates the problem it actually ensures that there will always be a problem.
This is because the academic establishment, and I have spoken to many of them, does not even consider the possibility of recombination introducing deleterious alleles ( as with crossovers) or increasing their numbers ( gene conversion). They would just prefer not to deal with that. I accused one such professor with negligence and he just said "You need to quantify what you are referring to"....me? what about you?! You are the professor!
Well, of course the Desai paper repeatedly reflects on the role of natural selection - effective natural selection - in every instance they consider and model.
The linkage issue is described as a constraint on natural selection, but not something that prevents it. I just don't see the paper as supporting your contentions. We already know there are constraints to any process: natural selection is no exception.
If anything the paper refutes your hypothesis by demonstrating how across an array of circumstances natural selection works upon mutations. In none of these circumstances is there a build up of 'mutational load'.
The papers do not support my position directly...what they do do is expose the issue of genetic linkage and how it interferes with natural selection. I
think they are understating the issue because they are not considering
temporary and associative linkage which are explained with examples in my draft.
I never said the mutational load increases: i contend that selection will ensure that some hamrful alleles will increase ( while others will decrease).....it is the frequency of genes at a particular locus that is a problem not many genes at different loci.
Do you not understand the distinction?
Heliopolis, I am not a biologist. I am certainly not a geneticist. I have some knowledge in the area, but am essentially self taught from textbooks and an eclectic selection of research papers.
Adding to the consequent difficulty of following your thesis is your insistence on often mixing in irrelevant diatribes and use of terms that have left several other members (all better versed in genetics than I) confused. The disitinction you were attempting to make was not clear. It is now.
Any invective is not directed at other members here.
Genetics is probably the best known science amongst
the general public as it is relevant to us all.
The problem i face is trying to get people to envisage
a mathematical dilemma that is not clear.....it only
becomes clear when you run simulations as much as
I do....
if you want my simulation I will email it to you.
I'm actually a professional research scientist with a publication record on the topic of evolution.1. you contradict yourself.
First you state that we all have 5-50 alleles are harmful.
Secondly, you state that it takes only one defective gene to be injurious or even lethal.
Obviously you are wrong since we all get along fine and we all reproduce (on average) nicely.
No, a recessive allele isn't harmful. I guess you were referring to that. But your language is so unscientific and sloppy that you create arguments out of your own inaccuracies.
Nature doesn't give a shit about whether you think an allele is harmful. Cystic fibrosis is a deadly disease. A large percentage of the population carries the allele. So fucking what! Sometimes the recessive allele meets another and you got yourself a seriously affected individual. So what? Obviously it didn't stop this allele from spreading through the population.
I suggest you take a beginner course in population genetics. You seriously are lacking in basic knowledge and the basic tools of science; such as the scientific language.
Yawn!....typical tripe from a pseudo-scientific Darwinist.
A single allele can be harmful in heterozygous form whether it is dominant or recessive......Huntington's disease is one such example.
We do carry a lot of recessive alleles which ,when they become homozygous, can kill us.
If you bothered to ask to read my paper you would realize that natural selection would increase the frequencies of certain deleterious alleles
by way of genetic hitchhiking. This in turn would mean that many beneficial alleles would be culled by background selection.
Having done 8 course units in population genetics, it is obvious you are out to insult and debate....but why am I not surprised?
Which is a very bad phrasing of the process of natural selection.
A what?
A normally growing population? What is that supposed to be? Most populations are effectively in stasis and limited by resources. There can be a flux in population size due to variability in the availability of resources, but one thing a population does not do is grow as a trend, unless it is under special circumstances. Such as is the case in the human population at the moment.
Actually no. Population size does affect the frequency of deleterious/neutral mutations. End of your argument.
Complete nonsense. Selection diminishes growth. That's why it is called selection. As in a select group reproduces. The fact that not all individuals reproduces cuts down on the population growth. Try applying simple logic before you write down something.
A process invented in your head?
Actually background selection is when a normal gene is linked to a detrimental one due to close proximity and is negatively selected against it because of this. Which is apparently very rare.
You seem unable to apply logic. You make up random stuff. You misapply common definitions. I know what I would do if I would ever get to peer-review any of your writing.
Reject.
A practical example of background selection:
Genetics, Vol. 158, 657-665, June 2001
"Regions of Lower Crossing Over Harbor More Rare Variants in African Populations of Drosophila melanogaster"
They check different popluation of Drosophila in Africa, because they are probably more near their ancestral state.
The conclusion was that the data (for heliopolis: that's like real life) does not fit a background selection model at all. In fact it suggested that "positive Darwinian selection is a common force shaping patterns of variability in natural populations."
Or this one:
Genetics. 2005 Jul;170(3):1153-65.
"The reduction of polymorphism at su(s) combined with the excess of high-frequency variants in D. simulans is inconsistent with the hitchhiking and background-selection models."
You can desire that natural selection doesn't exist and make up your own world, but unfortunately in science our individual world has to be aligned with reality. That is, what is actually happening out there.
| « new bioinformatics website | How a beneficial allele will never spread » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
1Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
