The idea for this thread came from this post in the creationist sub-forum. Thanks to philadiddle for explaining to me how to link to it.
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35700766&postcount=6
Here are the points I want to concentrate on:
First credit where credit is due. The first statement is quite correct. In fact we can leave out the word "random". There is a big difference between an adaptation and a mutation, period. In fact,there is a difference between a mutation and a variation, never mind an adaptive variation.
The second statement is also true in the terms it is stated. Most of what people identify as variation in a population owes more to recombination of unaltered genes in rich gene pools than to new mutations producing new variations.
However, what this statement overlooks is the difference between "variation" or "variety" as commonly perceived and "variability" which is the actual focus of evolutionary studies.
Let us start back at basics. A mutation is a change in DNA sequence. The first thing we should note is that a mutation does not necessarily produce a variance in a genetic trait. Due to redundancy in the genetic code, a change in DNA sequence may still produce the same amino acid, which produces the same protein, and the same non-varying trait. This fact enables geneticists to study whether or not evolution is occurring. Since these synonymous mutations produce no variation, they are immune to selective pressures. A comparison of the fate of synonymous to non-synonymous (variation-producing) mutations helps determine whether selection pressures influence the inheritance of the non-synonymous mutations.
They don't always. A variation may be quite neutral in its survival benefit. So even when a mutation does produce a variation, the variation is not necessarily adaptive or maladaptive.
So it is very true that there is a difference 1) between a mutation and a variation and 2) between a mutation and an adaptation, and 3) between a variation and an adaptation. A lot of confusion does arise from treating these terms as synonyms when they are not.
Now to the second statement.
Again, much of what people see as variety is due more to recombination than to new mutation. Let's take 8 features and give them each two possible alternates:
gender (male, female)
hair colour (dark, light)
hair texture (curly, straight)
eye colour (blue, brown)
skin colour (dark, light)
ear lobes (long, short)
nose width (narrow, wide)
lips (full, thin)
Simple math tells us that when these are randomly assorted we get 512 different combinations of these eight traits.
Traits are not always assorted randomly. A single gene which controls several traits means those traits tend to be inherited as a package deal. Ditto when two genes are found close to each other on the same chromosome. And even without these qualifiers, we see common associations of certain traits. Blue eyes in people with dark skin and hair pigmentation is much, much rarer than among people with lighter skin and hair pigmentation.
The fact that some combinations of traits come as package deal rather than being randomly assorted explains some features of evolution. If out of a bundle of five traits all dependent on the same gene, one is adaptive, the others will be inherited along with it, whether they are adaptive or not. Some could even be moderately maladaptive and still be preserved if the one supported by positive selection is of significant benefit.
My main point, however, is that while recombination explains how we get many combinations of different traits in a species and so explains much of the variety we see, it does not deal with the sort of variation evolution studies.
Evolution does not study primarily how different traits are combined. It studies how much variation exists in one trait and what happens to the proportional distribution of the variants of one trait. To keep us from becoming confused, I suggest we call the latter a study in variability, rather than a study of variation.
Variability is not about differing combinations of two or more traits depending on two or more genes. It is about how many different variations of a single gene we find in a population, how those variations are distributed in a population, what changes occur in this distribution from generation to generation, and what causes influence these changes in distrbution.
In the example of recombination above, we noted two alternatives for each trait. But we know that for some of them there are many more than two alternatives.
The first question to be asked is "Why is any gene expressed in more than one way?" What causes a gene to be expressed in more than one way? One answer appears to be a variation in DNA sequence in the gene itself. Another would be a variation in DNA sequence in a regulatory section of the genome that tells a gene when to be active and when not to be active. I am sure there are other possibilities. But these two at least depend on differences in DNA sequence.
Why do these differences exist? One could say the species was created with alternate forms of the DNA sequence. If not, the variation in the DNA sequence must have come about through a mutation. So even when there are only two alternate sequences, one possible explanation of why they exist is mutation.
Also, even with only two alternate expressions of a gene, you still have differences in distribution and sometimes changes in the distribution of the alternatives. The latter, by definition, is evolution.
The next question to be asked is "How many variants of a single gene exist in a population?" For some genes the answer is none. All members of a species show the same DNA sequence and express the same gene in the same way. For others we can find two, three, a dozen, and even in some cases, hundreds of different variants of the same gene affecting the same trait.
This is variability. Not combinations of different traits dependent on different genes, but how many ways a gene can be formulated in its DNA sequence, how many different variants of the traits governed by the gene show up in the populations, and what happens to the distribution of these variants in the population over time.
So although the point on recombination is valid in one framework, it is not the sort of variation which is the actual focus of evolution. The actual focus is on variability.
Once this concept is understood, it poses some problems for a recent creation of Genesis "kinds" But I will need to leave that for a later post as I am running short of time.
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35700766&postcount=6
Here are the points I want to concentrate on:
First credit where credit is due. The first statement is quite correct. In fact we can leave out the word "random". There is a big difference between an adaptation and a mutation, period. In fact,there is a difference between a mutation and a variation, never mind an adaptive variation.
The second statement is also true in the terms it is stated. Most of what people identify as variation in a population owes more to recombination of unaltered genes in rich gene pools than to new mutations producing new variations.
However, what this statement overlooks is the difference between "variation" or "variety" as commonly perceived and "variability" which is the actual focus of evolutionary studies.
Let us start back at basics. A mutation is a change in DNA sequence. The first thing we should note is that a mutation does not necessarily produce a variance in a genetic trait. Due to redundancy in the genetic code, a change in DNA sequence may still produce the same amino acid, which produces the same protein, and the same non-varying trait. This fact enables geneticists to study whether or not evolution is occurring. Since these synonymous mutations produce no variation, they are immune to selective pressures. A comparison of the fate of synonymous to non-synonymous (variation-producing) mutations helps determine whether selection pressures influence the inheritance of the non-synonymous mutations.
They don't always. A variation may be quite neutral in its survival benefit. So even when a mutation does produce a variation, the variation is not necessarily adaptive or maladaptive.
So it is very true that there is a difference 1) between a mutation and a variation and 2) between a mutation and an adaptation, and 3) between a variation and an adaptation. A lot of confusion does arise from treating these terms as synonyms when they are not.
Now to the second statement.
Again, much of what people see as variety is due more to recombination than to new mutation. Let's take 8 features and give them each two possible alternates:
gender (male, female)
hair colour (dark, light)
hair texture (curly, straight)
eye colour (blue, brown)
skin colour (dark, light)
ear lobes (long, short)
nose width (narrow, wide)
lips (full, thin)
Simple math tells us that when these are randomly assorted we get 512 different combinations of these eight traits.
Traits are not always assorted randomly. A single gene which controls several traits means those traits tend to be inherited as a package deal. Ditto when two genes are found close to each other on the same chromosome. And even without these qualifiers, we see common associations of certain traits. Blue eyes in people with dark skin and hair pigmentation is much, much rarer than among people with lighter skin and hair pigmentation.
The fact that some combinations of traits come as package deal rather than being randomly assorted explains some features of evolution. If out of a bundle of five traits all dependent on the same gene, one is adaptive, the others will be inherited along with it, whether they are adaptive or not. Some could even be moderately maladaptive and still be preserved if the one supported by positive selection is of significant benefit.
My main point, however, is that while recombination explains how we get many combinations of different traits in a species and so explains much of the variety we see, it does not deal with the sort of variation evolution studies.
Evolution does not study primarily how different traits are combined. It studies how much variation exists in one trait and what happens to the proportional distribution of the variants of one trait. To keep us from becoming confused, I suggest we call the latter a study in variability, rather than a study of variation.
Variability is not about differing combinations of two or more traits depending on two or more genes. It is about how many different variations of a single gene we find in a population, how those variations are distributed in a population, what changes occur in this distribution from generation to generation, and what causes influence these changes in distrbution.
In the example of recombination above, we noted two alternatives for each trait. But we know that for some of them there are many more than two alternatives.
The first question to be asked is "Why is any gene expressed in more than one way?" What causes a gene to be expressed in more than one way? One answer appears to be a variation in DNA sequence in the gene itself. Another would be a variation in DNA sequence in a regulatory section of the genome that tells a gene when to be active and when not to be active. I am sure there are other possibilities. But these two at least depend on differences in DNA sequence.
Why do these differences exist? One could say the species was created with alternate forms of the DNA sequence. If not, the variation in the DNA sequence must have come about through a mutation. So even when there are only two alternate sequences, one possible explanation of why they exist is mutation.
Also, even with only two alternate expressions of a gene, you still have differences in distribution and sometimes changes in the distribution of the alternatives. The latter, by definition, is evolution.
The next question to be asked is "How many variants of a single gene exist in a population?" For some genes the answer is none. All members of a species show the same DNA sequence and express the same gene in the same way. For others we can find two, three, a dozen, and even in some cases, hundreds of different variants of the same gene affecting the same trait.
This is variability. Not combinations of different traits dependent on different genes, but how many ways a gene can be formulated in its DNA sequence, how many different variants of the traits governed by the gene show up in the populations, and what happens to the distribution of these variants in the population over time.
So although the point on recombination is valid in one framework, it is not the sort of variation which is the actual focus of evolution. The actual focus is on variability.
Once this concept is understood, it poses some problems for a recent creation of Genesis "kinds" But I will need to leave that for a later post as I am running short of time.
