Oncedeceived, Natural genetic engineering in evolution is a paper stating what biologists knew in 1992 (24 years ago) - conventional evolutionary theory had a hard time explaining molecular genetics results.
stevew, this paper does not support your claim of Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. (my emphasis added).
stevew, this paper does not support your claim of Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. (my emphasis added).
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/30/12235.abstractOncedeceived, the opinion of one scientist described in a magazine article is not the scientific literature.
stevew, this paper does not support your claim of Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. (my emphasis added).
The next paragraph isFirst, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin (6) articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection, for which an elaborate theory in terms of genotype frequencies now exists (10, 11). The remaining three evolutionary forces are nonadaptive in the sense that they are not a function of the fitness properties of individuals: mutation is the ultimate source of variation on which natural selection acts, recombination assorts variation within and among chromosomes, and genetic drift ensures that gene frequencies will deviate a bit from generation to generation independent of other forces. Given the century of work devoted to the study of evolution, it is reasonable to conclude that these four broad classes encompass all of the fundamental forces of evolution.
(my emphasis added)Second, all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution. It is impossible to understand evolution purely in terms of natural selection, and many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement (12, 13). Because all three nonadaptive forces of evolution are stochastic in nature, this conclusion raises some significant technical challenges. It is tempting to think that stochastic processes have no implications for the direction of evolution. However, the effects of mutation and recombination are nonrandom, and by magnifying the role of chance, genetic drift indirectly imposes directionality on evolution by encouraging the fixation of mildly deleterious mutations and discouraging the promotion of beneficial mutations.
stevew, this paper does not support your claim of Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. (my emphasis added).
The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes (2007) by Michael Lynch is about transcriptional networks (not strictly "life"). It does not say that natural selection is not responsible for the "origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies". It says that non-adaptive processes can just as easily explain these aspects in computational procedures.
Oncedeceived, the opinion of one scientist described in a magazine article is not the scientific literature.
Did you read what you quoted in my reply to stevew?Did you miss this:
That is exactly what I said the Lynch paper says.stevew, this paper does not support your claim of Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. (my emphasis added).
The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes (2007) by Michael Lynch is about transcriptional networks (not strictly "life"). It does not say that natural selection is not responsible for the "origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies". It says that non-adaptive processes can just as easily explain these aspects in computational procedures.
The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution is once again an opinion of Masatoshi Nei.
I will have to go and look, I haven't went through the whole thread.
You said his claim wasn't that it was "not dominant" and it clearly was there in black and white.
Natural selection can change nothing.
It changes nothing it works on what has been changed.
Still wondering about this question.Did you actually read this paper? Just want to make sure this isn't another example of you knowing what must be in your source without looking at them.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/30/12235.abstract
However, once the mutations are incorporated into the genome, they may generate developmental constraints that will affect the future direction of phenotypic evolution. It appears that the driving force of phenotypic evolution is mutation, and natural selection is of secondary importance.
Did you read this book? What are the 5 most important paragraphs which support the claim that "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible"?http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-015-9794-2
The point I was making was in reference to the out and out falsehood that KC posted against stevew.Did you read what you quoted in my reply to stevew?
That is exactly what I said the Lynch paper says.
Hey look, a creationist posting a paper touting natural selection as important to try and back up a claim that "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible".
Did you read this book? What are the 5 most important paragraphs which support the claim that "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible"?
Your falsehood against steveew was clearly obvious.Nah, no reason to have any idea what the discussion is about before trying to correct people.
What I saw was a post steveew posted which clearly stated that natural selection was not dominate and you saying that it was not his claim which it was there in black and white.No, that was a quote from a source he was trying to use to support his claim that "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible". Even you can see that they are different.
Does natural selection change anything in the genome?Citation needed.
I an certainly open to correction. Do you have something to show I am incorrect?Citation needed.
There was no falsehood as anyone who reads the exchange or my posts about it can see.The point I was making was in reference to the out and out falsehood that KC posted against stevew.
There is scientific evidence about known "non adaptive influences" in evolution, i.e. the factors of mutations, recombination and genetic drift.The evidence is showing that most of the ability for life to change is coming from non adaptive influences such as HGT or in development.
HGT nor natural selection can do anything until there is a genetic variation.There is scientific evidence about known "non adaptive influences" in evolution, i.e. the factors of mutations, recombination and genetic drift.
Can you give the scientific evidence "showing that most of the ability for life to change is coming from non adaptive influences such as HGT or in development"?
Horizontal gene transfer is an important factor in evolution of many (not all) organisms, e.g. bacteria.
Correct. ETA - plenty of sources of genetic variation, e.g. mutations, transcription errors, etc.HGT nor natural selection can do anything until there is a genetic variation.
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?