info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Stenberg ja Sanfordin a rgumentit osa 09 AnttiHx Samuli K
26 views
Skip to first unread message
TJT2
Jul 25, 2022, 2:27:05 AM7/25/22
to
Stenberg näyttää raukkamaisesti juosseen karkuun ja haasteen määräaikakin
umpeutui, ja AnttiHx ja Samuli käsittääkseni ovat käyneet jotain keskustelua
lukuun 9 liittyen, joten copypastaan vain "johdannon" ja sen jälkeiset
"väliotsikot".
Chapter 9 Can Natural Selection Create?
Newsflash - Mutation/selection cannot even create a single gene.
We have been examining the problem of genomic degeneration and have found
that deleterious mutations occur at a very high rate. Natural selection can
only eliminate the worst of these, while all the rest accumulate - like rust
on a car. Might beneficial mutations at other sites in the genome compensate
for this continuous and systematic erosion of genetic information? The
answer is that beneficial mutations are much too rare, and are much too
subtle to keep up with such relentless and systematic erosion of
information. This is carefully documented by Sanford et al. (2013), and
Montañez et al. (2013). It is very easy to systematically destroy
information, but apart from the operation of intelligence it is very hard
(arguably impossible) to create information.
This problem overrides all hope for the forward evolution of the whole
genome. However, some limited traits might still be improved via
mutation/selection. Just how limited is such progressive ("creative")
mutation/selection? By now it should be clear that random spelling errors in
an instruction manual could never give rise to an airplane component (say a
molded aluminum part), which then resulted in a significantly improved
overall performance of a jet plane. Not even with an unlimited number of
flight trials/crashes and an unlimited budget. So it is certainly reasonable
to ask the parallel biological question, "Could mutation/selection create a
single functional gene from scratch?"
Mutation/selection could not create a single gene because of the enormous
preponderance of deleterious mutations, even within the context of a single
gene. The net information must always still be declining, even within a
single gene or linkage block. Even if a gene was 50% established,
deleterious mutations would degrade the completed half of the gene much
faster than beneficials could create the missing half of the gene. However,
to better understand the limits of forward selection, let us for the moment
discount all deleterious mutations and only consider beneficial mutations.
Could mutation/selection then create a new and functional gene?
1. Defining our first desirable mutation.
2. Waiting for the first mutation.
3. Waiting for the other mutations.
4. Waiting on "Haldane's dilemma".
5. Waiting for recombination?
6. Endless fitness valleys.
7. Poly-constrained DNA.
8. Irreducible complexity.
9. Almost all beneficial mutations must be nearly-neutral.
10. Putting bad mutations back in the picture.
a) Muller's ratchet
b) Too much selective cost
c) Non-random mutation
d) Extinction of both human and chimp lineages
Jokaisessa kohdassa on tietysti runsaasti tekstiä, jopa sivutolkulla, joten
suosittelen kääntymään Samulin puoleen tai hankkimaan kirjan jos kiinnostaa.
Itse siirryn johtopäätöksiin:
We have reviewed compelling evidence that, even when ignoring deleterious
mutations, mutation/selection cannot create a single gene within the
evolutionary timescale. When deleterious mutations are factored back in, we
see that mutation/selection cannot create a single gene ever. This is
overwhelming evidence against the Primary Axiom.
In my opinion, this constitutes what is essentially a logical proof that the
Primary Axiom is false.
In conclusion, the genome, and each of its genes, must have been designed
and could not have evolved.
--
--TJT--
Oi että kun olen ruvennut enemmän ja enemmän inhoamaan/vieroksumaan koko
sanaa "mutaatio". Jos tämän sanan saisi kitkettyä pois..
- Kaj Stenberg, 19.11.19, s.k.e
umpeutui, ja AnttiHx ja Samuli käsittääkseni ovat käyneet jotain keskustelua
lukuun 9 liittyen, joten copypastaan vain "johdannon" ja sen jälkeiset
"väliotsikot".
Chapter 9 Can Natural Selection Create?
Newsflash - Mutation/selection cannot even create a single gene.
We have been examining the problem of genomic degeneration and have found
that deleterious mutations occur at a very high rate. Natural selection can
only eliminate the worst of these, while all the rest accumulate - like rust
on a car. Might beneficial mutations at other sites in the genome compensate
for this continuous and systematic erosion of genetic information? The
answer is that beneficial mutations are much too rare, and are much too
subtle to keep up with such relentless and systematic erosion of
information. This is carefully documented by Sanford et al. (2013), and
Montañez et al. (2013). It is very easy to systematically destroy
information, but apart from the operation of intelligence it is very hard
(arguably impossible) to create information.
This problem overrides all hope for the forward evolution of the whole
genome. However, some limited traits might still be improved via
mutation/selection. Just how limited is such progressive ("creative")
mutation/selection? By now it should be clear that random spelling errors in
an instruction manual could never give rise to an airplane component (say a
molded aluminum part), which then resulted in a significantly improved
overall performance of a jet plane. Not even with an unlimited number of
flight trials/crashes and an unlimited budget. So it is certainly reasonable
to ask the parallel biological question, "Could mutation/selection create a
single functional gene from scratch?"
Mutation/selection could not create a single gene because of the enormous
preponderance of deleterious mutations, even within the context of a single
gene. The net information must always still be declining, even within a
single gene or linkage block. Even if a gene was 50% established,
deleterious mutations would degrade the completed half of the gene much
faster than beneficials could create the missing half of the gene. However,
to better understand the limits of forward selection, let us for the moment
discount all deleterious mutations and only consider beneficial mutations.
Could mutation/selection then create a new and functional gene?
1. Defining our first desirable mutation.
2. Waiting for the first mutation.
3. Waiting for the other mutations.
4. Waiting on "Haldane's dilemma".
5. Waiting for recombination?
6. Endless fitness valleys.
7. Poly-constrained DNA.
8. Irreducible complexity.
9. Almost all beneficial mutations must be nearly-neutral.
10. Putting bad mutations back in the picture.
a) Muller's ratchet
b) Too much selective cost
c) Non-random mutation
d) Extinction of both human and chimp lineages
Jokaisessa kohdassa on tietysti runsaasti tekstiä, jopa sivutolkulla, joten
suosittelen kääntymään Samulin puoleen tai hankkimaan kirjan jos kiinnostaa.
Itse siirryn johtopäätöksiin:
We have reviewed compelling evidence that, even when ignoring deleterious
mutations, mutation/selection cannot create a single gene within the
evolutionary timescale. When deleterious mutations are factored back in, we
see that mutation/selection cannot create a single gene ever. This is
overwhelming evidence against the Primary Axiom.
In my opinion, this constitutes what is essentially a logical proof that the
Primary Axiom is false.
In conclusion, the genome, and each of its genes, must have been designed
and could not have evolved.
--
--TJT--
Oi että kun olen ruvennut enemmän ja enemmän inhoamaan/vieroksumaan koko
sanaa "mutaatio". Jos tämän sanan saisi kitkettyä pois..
- Kaj Stenberg, 19.11.19, s.k.e
AnttiHx
Jul 29, 2022, 2:53:59 AM7/29/22
to
TJT2 kirjoitti 25/07/2022 klo 9.22:
>
> We have reviewed compelling evidence that, even when ignoring
> deleterious mutations, mutation/selection cannot create a single gene
> within the evolutionary timescale. When deleterious mutations are
> factored back in, we see that mutation/selection cannot create a single
> gene ever. This is overwhelming evidence against the Primary Axiom.
Kerro nyt voiko nykyisillä sioilla olla yhteinen Nooan arkissa ollut
>
> We have reviewed compelling evidence that, even when ignoring
> deleterious mutations, mutation/selection cannot create a single gene
> within the evolutionary timescale. When deleterious mutations are
> factored back in, we see that mutation/selection cannot create a single
> gene ever. This is overwhelming evidence against the Primary Axiom.
esi-isä? Teikäläisten mukaanhan siinä arkissa oli vain kaksi sikaa.
Kuinkahan monta uuttaa geeniä läytyy näiden kahden sian jälkeläisistä.
Antti
TJT2
Jul 31, 2022, 3:16:47 AM7/31/22
to
AnttiHx wrote:
> TJT2 kirjoitti 25/07/2022 klo 9.22:
>> We have reviewed compelling evidence that, even when ignoring
>> deleterious mutations, mutation/selection cannot create a single gene
>> within the evolutionary timescale. When deleterious mutations are
>> factored back in, we see that mutation/selection cannot create a
>> single gene ever. This is overwhelming evidence against the Primary
>> Axiom.
>
> Kerro nyt voiko nykyisillä sioilla olla yhteinen Nooan arkissa ollut
> esi-isä?
Tietysti siat ovat polveutuneen arkissa olleista sioista, mistä muusta ne
> TJT2 kirjoitti 25/07/2022 klo 9.22:
>> We have reviewed compelling evidence that, even when ignoring
>> deleterious mutations, mutation/selection cannot create a single gene
>> within the evolutionary timescale. When deleterious mutations are
>> factored back in, we see that mutation/selection cannot create a
>> single gene ever. This is overwhelming evidence against the Primary
>> Axiom.
>
> Kerro nyt voiko nykyisillä sioilla olla yhteinen Nooan arkissa ollut
> esi-isä?
olisivat muka voineet polveutua, hevoseläimistäkö?? Siis mikähän tämän
mystisen kysymyksesi pointti...??
> Teikäläisten mukaanhan siinä arkissa oli vain kaksi sikaa.
> Kuinkahan monta uuttaa geeniä läytyy näiden kahden sian jälkeläisistä.
--
--TJT--
AnttiHx
Jul 31, 2022, 12:56:46 PM7/31/22
to
mukaanlukien kesysika, villisika ja pahkasika ovat näiden kahden Nooan
arkin possun jälkeläisiä.
Netistä löytyy mielenkiintoinen artikkeli jossa on verrattu kenialaisen
possun genomia pahkasian genomiin ja näitä sian referenssigenomiin:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.17.473133v1.full
Siitä löytyy muun muuassa seuraavat virkket:
xxx
We found 1,668 novel PCGs (Supplementary Table 4) in the warthog
assembly, which were supported by mRNA transcripts and had an ortholog
in either the non-redundant database (NR) of NCBI, InterPro, or
UniportDB (Swiss-Prot and TrEMBL). Notably, these warthog unique PCGs
contained the largest percentage of immune-related genes as compared to
pig PCGs and were significantly enriched in KEGG pathways related to
‘‘Pathways in cancer’’ and ‘‘Metabolic pathways’’ (adjusted p-value <
0.01), which could explain why the warthogs are very strong in genetic
resistance/tolerance to a variety of endemic parasitic and viral diseases.
xxx
PCG = protein-coding genes
Artikkeli kerrotaan monesta muustakin sian ja pahkasian genomin erosta,
sinun kannatta lukea.
Mitenkä voit yhdistää Sanfordin väitteet, Nooan arkin kahden sian
väitteen (siis max 4 alleelia per geeni) ja tämän artikkelin kertoman
todellisuuden? GDI?
Muuten, pahkasian ja kesysian/villisian yhteisen esi-isän arvioidaan
eläneen reilut 10 miljoonaa vuotta sitten. Pahkasian ja kesysian välinen
geneettinen ero on siis selvästi suurempi kuin ihmisen ja simpanssin tai
ihmisen/simpanssin ja gorillan.
Antti
0 new messages