Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
John Edser
William L Hunt wrote:-
>> http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/56221/
>>
>>
>> "Previously, scientists studying cancer genomes had identified a handful
>> of so-called driver mutations -- those that have a causative effect on
>> the cancerous growth. But these two papers are the first to also analyze
>> the noncoding regions of the genome, which may also contain driver
>> mutations that could act by altering gene expression, Vogelstein said."
>>
>> JE:-
>> The Neo Darwinian view that the non coding part of the genome, which
>> constitutes the majority of the genome, is junk, is wrong.
> I would consider myself a Neo-Darwinian and this is not my view. I
> think you would have difficulty finding anyone, Neo-Darwinian or
> otherwise, that holds this view today.
JE:-
Hi William,
Then equally and oppositely, you also find difficulty in finding anybody
who holds to Haldane and Hamilton's and therefore Dawkins' Neo
Darwinistic view? This is because selfish geneism remains incompatible
with functional junk DNA.
> The Neo-Darwinian view might be that 2% of the human genome is
> functional coding, up to another 2% is composed of functional
> non-coding elements, and 95% or so is composed of non-functional
> sequences.
JE:-
Ok, then what exactly is the proposed Neo Darwinistic fitness
relationship between them?
> Since in humans there are about 50 point mutations per generation and
> since natural selection can handle at most 2 mutations per generation,
> the functional portion of the genome that natural selection maintains
> must at most be 4-5% (2 divided by 50).
JE:-
This assumes that selection is not simply allowing most of these
mutations. Mutation can be useful at the Darwinian organism (even if it
remains lethal at the gene level) by providing heritable, random
variation e.g. unique faces for individual identification.
> The extent of the functional non-coding portion is still not
> determined but, speaking for myself only, I think natural selection
> will probably be found to use as much of the genome as possible within
> the limit imposed by the mutation rate.
JE:-
I think that the Neo Darwinian view that mutation rates are not
selectable because they are mostly random will eventually have to be
thrown out.
> This means I think the
> functional non-coding portion will, in time, be found to be about 2%
> and roughly equal to the coding portion.
> William L Hunt
JE:-
I predict that the coding portion will be demonstrated to be a nested
fitness subset of the non coding portion (excluding the reverse as a
falsification) such that the non coding portion critically regulates the
fitness of the coding portion _only allowing selection at the non coding
portion_. This necessarily excludes Neo Darwinistic "selfish geneism"
disallowing the evolution of organism fitness altruism.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher