Oh, wouldn't you know it . . . the fitness of nonhypermutator control lines did not decrease over time. Why did you fail to mention this?
It is also worth mentioning that they observed beneficial mutations in this experiment:
"Although the average fitness effect of a step was deleterious, there were numerous steps in which fitness increased (Figure 4). To confirm the presence of steps containing beneficial mutations, we repeated the competitive fitness assays for the 11 steps with the largest increases in fitness. Even after false discovery rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg 1995), fitness increased significantly (P < 0.05) in 6/89 (6.7%) of the measurable steps."
You failed to mention that as well. Why?
More from whois' paper. I am starting to suspect that whois is suddenly regretting ever using this paper. Time will tell.
As discussed earlier, the bacterial populations go through sudden and severe bottlenecks. The population goes from a single bacterium, to a few hundred thousand, and back to a single bacterium in one fell swoop about every 30 generations. Each new population is a randomly selected individual. This, in effect, removes natural selection from the process.
What you see with a hypermutator and these extreme bottlenecks is what happens when you have a lot of mutations and no natural selection. Wouldn't you know it, fitness goes down.
"Using detailed fitness measurements and whole genome resequencing, we studied the evolutionary dynamics of eight replicate mutation accumulation lines of a hypermutator strain of the pathogenic bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa. MA lines were passaged through 28 single-cell bottlenecks followed by rapid population growth over a period of ∼644 generations. Under this regime, we estimate that the effective population size of MA lines had a lower limit of ∼16, which should be sufficient to prevent natural selection on the vast majority of spontaneous mutations."
http://www.genetics.org/content/197/3/981.full
Just hoping that whois is still willing to discuss the paper.
yes, i am.Just hoping that whois is still willing to discuss the paper.
the boyce article?
this was an article where an evolutionist was interviewing an evolutionist.
i guess they just decided to lie their butts off, right?
i have no idea why you make assumptions like that.
seldom do i skim creationist sites for material.
again, you believe wrong, the entire point of the paper was to prove fitness is strongly influenced by rare mutations of strong effect.
Our experimental approach allowed us to experimentally demonstrate that it is highly likely that at least 0.64% of the mutations that fixed during our MA experiment were beneficial. For these mutations to have been fixed by drift, the beneficial mutation rate in a nonhypermutator population with a genomic mutation rate of 3 × 10−3 mutations/genome/generation would have to have been ∼5 × 10−6 mutations/genome/generation, which is two to three orders of magnitude higher than existing estimates.
-ibid
Additionally, we found no evidence of positive selection on the same genes in different MA lines. Surprisingly, we found that nonsynonymous mutations in highly conserved core genes can have strong deleterious effects on fitness (Figure 2), and yet we found no evidence that these mutations were removed by natural selection.
-ibid
you are indeed a riot loudmouth.And?
The whole point of the methodology was to remove natural selection in order to get a better idea of what the deleterious mutation rate really is. They did this by selecting random bacteria as the founders of new populations. If natural selection were allowed to act on these populations, one way or the other, then the would overestimate the beneficial mutation rate and underestimate the deleterious mutation rate.
What did you think those quotes were trying to say?
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32Was Koonin lying when he wrote this?
"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns."
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32
the adaptive nature of darwinism is also incorrect as one of my recent posts shows.
the MA experiment conclusively shows a linearly decreasing fitness with the accumulation of mutations.
what does koonin have to do with the boyce article?
exactly zero, that's what.
more waffling on your part.
yes indeed, a respected, peer reviewed source if i ever seen it.
other scientists do.Will you acknowledge that you have read this quote and understand that Koonin sees very little role for HGT in the evolution of complex eukaryotes like humans?
you are indeed a riot loudmouth.
you know for a fact your post is garbage.
you know full well that your post refers to the test samples and not the controls."Using detailed fitness measurements and whole genome resequencing, we studied the evolutionary dynamics of eight replicate mutation accumulation lines of a hypermutator strain of the pathogenic bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa. MA lines were passaged through 28 single-cell bottlenecks followed by rapid population growth over a period of ∼644 generations. Under this regime, we estimate that the effective population size of MA lines had a lower limit of ∼16, which should be sufficient to prevent natural selection on the vast majority of spontaneous mutations."
http://www.genetics.org/content/197/3/981.full
It says right in the paper that they removed selection pressures.
you know full well that your post refers to the test samples and not the controls.
just stop it already loudmouth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?