Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Another Day; Another Bad Day for Darwinism: Pt. 43

Categories
Evolutionary biology
Genetics
Genomics
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This is from a new study published in Nature Communications, and talked about at Phys.Org.

Oh, how difficult it is these days to be an “intellectually fulfilled” neo-Darwinian:

Humans don’t like being alone, and their genes are no different. Together we are stronger, and the two versions of a gene – one from each parent – need each other. Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics in Berlin have analysed the genetic makeup of several hundred people and decoded the genetic information on the two sets of chromosomes separately. In this relatively small group alone they found millions of different gene forms. The results also show that genetic mutations do not occur randomly in the two parental chromosome sets and that they are distributed in the same ratio in everyone.

Ouch!!!!!

The results show that most genes can occur in many different forms within a population: On average, about 250 different forms of each gene exist. The researchers found around four million different gene forms just in the 400 or so genomes they analysed. This figure is certain to increase as more human genomes are examined. More than 85 percent of all genes have no predominant form which occurs in more than half of all individuals. This enormous diversity means that over half of all genes in an individual, around 9,000 of 17,500, occur uniquely in that one person – and are therefore individual in the truest sense of the word.

Uh oh. What happened to “purifying selection”? Ouch!!!!

According to the researchers, mutations of genes are not randomly distributed between the parental chromosomes. They found that 60 percent of mutations affect the same chromosome set and 40 percent both sets. Scientists refer to these as cis and trans mutations, respectively. Evidently, an organism must have more cis mutations, where the second gene form remains intact. “It’s amazing how precisely the 60:40 ratio is maintained. It occurs in the genome of every individual – almost like a magic formula,” says Hoehe. The 60:40 distribution ratio appears to be essential for survival. “This formula may help us to understand how gene variability occurs and how it affects gene function.”

Double Ouch!!!!!

The gene, as we imagined it, exists only in exceptional cases. “We need to fundamentally rethink the view of genes that every schoolchild has learned since Gregor Mendel’s time. Moreover, the conventional view of individual mutations is no longer adequate. Instead, we have to consider the two gene forms and their combination of variants,” Hoehe explains. When analysing genomes, scientists should therefore examine each parental gene form separately, as well as the effects of both forms as a pair.

What’s that you say? Oh, you’re going to take your bat and go home now? I understand.

Yikes!!! Could it get any worse for the Darwinists? Just wait for tomorrow. . . . .

Comments
wd400:
You “prefer your take on the paper” only because you don’t understand the paper.
I'm having difficulty understanding your take on the paper. It is you, not the authors, who is positing "purifying selection." It is you, not the authors, who is saying that the 60:40 ratio is a residue of recombination. I think I understand the paper. They're using methods to analyze both strands of DNA for a select number of genomes, and then comparing them, statistically, to a large collection of genomes. From their analysis, which is apparently more accurate that diploid studies, they've found "exorbitant diversity." They've found that a "wild-type" allele happens in less than 15% of the cases. Should I go on? It is you who are mucking things up. Where did I ever say that they were doing proteomic investigations? Where? But they did "compare" their results to known proteomic results. Then it was you who asserted that this discrepancy is proof of "purifying selection." The following discussion was my attempt at saying: 'I don't buy your analysis.' The genetic variance is there. Whether, and how, that is expressed is a story for a different day. I honestly don't understand why you're making such a big deal of proteomic results. That's not their focus. Their focus is more along the lines of how these allelic variants might affect the efficacy of drug treatments. By that, I presume that they mean the genome is capable of switching to these other variant alleles, and that a drug schema, built around proteomic expression, might not, in the end, work. Here's how they end the paper:
Thus, the relationship between the CDP, mono-allelic expression and also allele-specific expression requires clarification. So does the role of the CDP in transcriptome diversity within and between individuals, species, tissues, developmental and physiological stages, health and disease. The CDP represents a new aspect of the highly complex proteome, as such subject to further diversification through alternative splicing and post-translational modifications. The molecular validation of the mutations defining these protein diplotypes will present future challenges.
You're take on all of this is: (1) they don't know what they're talking about, (2) there's no problem here at all. Meanwhile---I guess because they don't have anything better to do---they're saying that Mendelian genetics must be completely rethought. Are they really that wrong? Or, is this just: "Another Day; Another Bad Day for Darwinism"?PaV
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PST
@71 fifthmonarchyman
We also have something in common English is a second language to me as well. I grew up speaking Southern backwoods a merkin.
That's funny! Thank you!Dionisio
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PST
@70 bornagain77
I probably am worse than fifthmonarchyman and wd400 put together on typos!
Please, allow me to disagree on that. Given the relatively large amount of text you usually post in most threads within this blog almost daily, probably your typo average is quite low. :) However, your humility to graciously admit that you have made mistakes, sets you apart from your interlocutor, who didn't like my pointing to his error. Onlookers/lurkers can notice this difference in reactions and take it into account when arriving at their own conclusions after reading the different posts in this blog. :)Dionisio
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PST
@68 fifthmonarchyman
I meant Micro probably the only thing WD400 and I share is a tendency to misspell and TYPO. He is a light weight compared to me in that regard ;-)
We all misspell and typo, but probably no one does it more often than I do it. Y'all are lightweights compared to me in that regard. :) Now, one thing that clearly distinguishes you from your interlocutor is your humility to graciously accept a correction. That's quite a difference. :) May God bless you.Dionisio
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PST
Dionisio, We also have something in common English is a second language to me as well. I grew up speaking Southern backwoods a merkin. ;-) Peacefifthmonarchyman
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PST
Dionisio, I probably am worse than fifthmonarchyman and wd400 put together on typos!bornagain77
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PST
@66 bornagain77
of note to wd400 dissing ID, it interesting to note the beam in his eye,,,
Just to show wd400 that my treatment is fair and balanced, I wrote post #67 in reference to post #60 by fifthmonarchyman and now let's point to this one too: it's interesting :)Dionisio
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PST
Dionisio. I meant Micro probably the only thing WD400 and I share is a tendency to misspell and TYPO. He is a light weight compared to me in that regard ;-)fifthmonarchyman
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PST
@60 fifthmonarchyman
That in a nut shell is the difference between Mico and Macro evolution.
Micro? :)Dionisio
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PST
of note to wd400 dissing ID, it interesting to note the beam in his eye,,, Science owes nothing to Darwinism – Jonathan Wells https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/science-owes-nothing-to-darwinism-jonathan-wells/#comment-531669 Of related interest to Darwinism failing to provide a fruitful heuristic for science, (ignoring the many blind alleys Darwinism has led science down), Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassment: "It has become clear in the past ten years that the concept of design is not merely an add-on meta-description of biological systems, of no scientific consequence, but is in fact a driver of science. A whole cohort of young scientists is being trained to “think like engineers” when looking at biological systems, using terms explicitly related to engineering design concepts: design, purpose, optimal tradeoffs for multiple goals, information, control, decision making, etc. This approach is widely seen as a successful, predictive, quantitative theory of biology." David Snoke*, Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design podcast: "David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 1" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-11T17_19_09-07_00 podcast: David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 2 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-13T16_30_01-07_00 How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design - July 2014 Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems: *"Negative feedback for stable operation." *"Frequency filtering" for extracting a signal from a noisy system. *Control and signaling to induce a response. *"Information storage" where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes: "This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. " *"Timing and synchronization," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order. *"Addressing," where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target. *"Hierarchies of function," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order. *"Redundancy," as organisms contain backup systems or "fail-safes" if primary essential systems fail. *"Adaptation," where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, "These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way," and "Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.",,, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that "just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little 'junk.'" He explains, "Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible," and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/when_biologists087871.html Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design - David Snoke - 2014 http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/viewArticle/BIO-C.2014.3 A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? - March 2010 Excerpt: Regarding testability, ID (Intelligent Design) makes the following testable predictions: (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information). (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/a_response_to_questions_from_a.html A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - March 2011 - several examples of cited research http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html podcast - "How the Latest Findings in Molecular Biology Support Intelligent Design, pt. 1" - Oct. 2014 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-10-22T17_50_39-07_00 "How the Latest Findings in Molecular Biology Support Intelligent Design, pt. 2" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-10-24T15_21_17-07_00bornagain77
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PST
@58 wd400
Well, I’m sure onlookers will learn a great deal from the way you focus on typos and ignore the substantial errors of fact in the original post and subsequent comments
I pay attention to grammatical and syntactical issues because English is not my first language and I'm still learning it. Almost everything I read in English I treat it as a reading comprehension test. If you read my post #36 in this thread, you will notice that I request that others call my attention to any grammatical or syntactical mistakes in my own posts. Apparently you did not read carefully what I wrote in that post? Also, in my post #37 I clearly wrote that my grammar/syntax observations were less important than the actual discussion on the OP subject. Apparently you did not read carefully that post either? Onlookers/lurkers reading this post may verify what I'm saying here. :)Dionisio
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PST
wd400, can you please point me to the empirical tests that have been conducted that have established the rigor of Darwinism? or is the beam of hypocrisy in your eye too blinding for that task? “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003bornagain77
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PST
fifthmonarchyman:
Allow me to make a few observations. I hope all this makes sense to someone
:-)keith s
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PST
... another chance to test the rigour of the ID movement...wd400
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PST
I think the golden ratio is telling us something here. The ratio is exactly what you would expect if a particular variant represented one part of an irreducibly Complex set. Think about a golden rectangle.. The shorter square side is the variant and the longer side of the rectangle is the rest of the variants taken as a whole. Together they make up one complete IC set. At least that is what it looks like to me Peacefifthmonarchyman
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PST
hey all. Allow me to make a few observations. I hope all this makes sense to someone 1) The set of all the variants to a particular gene is irreducibly complex. ie it contains all the variants and nothing else. 2) ‘wild-type’forms of genes do not exist in the physical world they are Platonic Ideals existing only outside the cave 3) If we wanted to calculate the Kolmogorov complexity for producing a given genetic variant in the set with out the "key" we would need to add (Phi to the Nth power)to the raw K Complexity of the variant taken individually. Where Phi is the golden ratio and N is the total number of variants in the set. 4) On the other hand once we had a variant the computational power necessary to move to an adjacent variant in the set is trivial. That in a nut shell is the difference between Mico and Macro evolution. peacefifthmonarchyman
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PST
wd400, since you are the one defending a unsubstantiated pseudo-science, i.e. defending neo-Darwinism, and apparently don't even realize it, do you think you should really be lecturing anybody on anything as to what you think is factually in error or not? ,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/another-day-another-bad-day-for-darwinism-pt-43/#comment-533577 I seem to recall a scripture of pulling a beam out of your own eye before attempting to pull a splinter out of someone else's,,,bornagain77
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PST
Well, I'm sure onlookers will learn a great deal from the way you focus on typos and ignore the substantial errors of fact in the original post and subsequent comments, Dionisio.wd400
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PST
@50 wd400
I’m not interested in the school master act, calling up typos while ignoring the many substantial faults in the OP.
Do you really believe that your personal interest can determine what others write about in this blog? If you're not interested in something written here, just ignore it, skip it, move on. Remember some comments here are written for the onlookers/lurkers, whose motivations are unknown to us. Not for you and your comrades. You and your fellow travelers have revealed your motivations already. They are obvious to any observer. ;-)Dionisio
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PST
but, again, this can all be attributed to how the “alleles” are being regulated.
Not. It can't. Because this study looks only a genomic DNA. No expression, no proteomics. You "prefer your take on the paper" only because you don't understand the paper. As I said earlier, it is interesting that none of your fellow travelers are able to set you straight on this.wd400
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PST
wd400:
It’s an open access paper.
Yes, this one. Is the "exception" the "rule" now?
(How likely is it that the paper that overturned Mendel was published in an open access fall-back journal, then not covered by any reputable science writers?
How likely is it that a paper that "overturns Mendel" would be welcomed at a "reputable" journal?
PaV: Purifying selection is meant to “eliminate” alleles that are deleterious, and, hence, a check on diversity. But that’s not what we see going on here.
wd400: That’s exactly what we see.
What "check on diversity" do we really see? There is extravagant diversity within the genome. It's the proteome that is not displaying this diversity; but, again, this can all be attributed to how the "alleles" are being regulated.
No. The difference is not in expression, it’s in what sorts of variations are present. Synonynous and non-coding variants are more common than non-synonymous ones. So, when DNA haplotypes get translated to proteins you get substantially fewer distinct proteins than distinct DNA types.
From what I've read, they have concerned themselves ONLY with non-synonymous mutations. So, if you're correct in your take on this paper, these variant protein forms should have been seen. But they're not. So, OTOH, we have genomic evidence of the various 'forms' of alleles, but, OTOH, the expression of the various 'forms' of alleles are not seen. The logical conclusion is either: (1) these other 'forms' are NOT being expressed (my position), or (2) they are being expressed and then the organism dies (purifying selection---your position). I prefer my take on the paper. Why? Because if they were being "eliminated," then these diverse molecular forms of the 'gene' would disappear.PaV
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PST
From the paper:
Exorbitant diversity at the gene level was found to converge upon a common diplotypic proteome, a subset of genes preferentially encoding two different proteins, allowing gene functions to be differentially exerted and/or diversified. Thus, the CDP [common diplotypic proteome] may represent a ‘major modulating principle’ generating diverse cellular and physiological outcomes in individual organisms, and a the population level giving rise to phenotypic diversity, adaptive and evolutionary processes."
Now, in their view, this might mean that the CDP "isolates" the organism from "purifying selection", and so "duplicated genes" are free to mutate, resulting in a richer diversity of possible expression in haplotype and diplotype forms, and, so, would be consistent with current evolutionary thought; however, how does this comport with the modern view of population genetics and its reliance on the "infinite allele" model when, for the most part, there is no "wild-type" allele? Or, from the OP:
This enormous diversity means that over half of all genes in an individual, around 9,000 of 17,500, occur uniquely in that one person – and are therefore individual in the truest sense of the word.
This kind of diversity would have thrown Kimura into conniption fits.PaV
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PST
Wouldn’t it be nice if we were professors at some university where we had access to the actual papers? But we aren’t. And I’m certainly not going to subscribe to all kinds of magazines.
It's an open access paper. In general, it is a bad idea to presume a research institute's press office (a) knows what the hell their scientists paper is about and (b) wants to give an even-handed account of the research's import. If you are stuck with secondary sources then it's better to reply on a good science writer, if you can't find one of those you ought to be skeptical. (How likely is it that the paper that overturned Mendel was published in an open access fall-back journal, then not covered by any reputable science writers?)
So, apparently it was “wrong” to set off in ‘bold-face’ the quote from the actual article. Could you explain, please?
It's perfectly evident that you thought that quote made for a "bad day for Darwinism", and that it showed mutation was not random in the way modern evolutionary biology holds mutations are. That was wrong, both in the context of the quote and due to the fact the study wasn't about de novo mutation so couldn't possibly done what you thought it did.
Purifying selection is meant to “eliminate” alleles that are deleterious, and, hence, a check on diversity. But that’s not what we see going on here.
That's exactly what we see.
Yes, there is a difference between which ‘genes’ (DNA) are being expressed and which are not, resulting in the distinction between the “protein” and “gene” diplotypes you point to.
No. The difference is not in expression, it's in what sorts of variatns are present. Synonynous and non-coding variants are more common than non-synonymous ones. So, when DNA haplotypes get translated to proteins you get substantially fewer distinct proteins than distinct DNA types. The fact there are markedly fewer protein-types, despite the fact most exonic mutations would be non-synonymous, tells you those non-synonymous mutations are being eliminated. That's purifying selection. Hardly a new finding, but evidence that even in the face of the (not at all suprising) diversity in "diplotypes", puridying selection is well attested in our genome. The rest of your comment appears to be based on your misunderstanding of the above.wd400
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PST
wd400:
Indeed. Isn’t it remarkable, then, that almost all coverage on new science here is a rehash or a press release collected by PhysOrg, ScienceDaily on some other PR aggregator?
Wouldn't it be nice if we were professors at some university where we had access to the actual papers? But we aren't. And I'm certainly not going to subscribe to all kinds of magazines. A little bit of perspective is needed here.
I don’t think they show this. Even if they did, Pav was wrong to think this paper was about the randomness of mutation, and wrong to thing non-random distribution among parental chromosomes was a problem for “Darwinism”.
So, apparently it was "wrong" to set off in 'bold-face' the quote from the actual article. Could you explain, please?
Pav (and apprently you) thought the high diversity meant purifying selection could be ruled out. In fact if (a) read the paper and (b) no even the first thing about population genetics you’d see they find evidence for purifying selection on proteins (though they don’t explictly say this). The number of protein diplotypes is vastly lower than the number of DNA diplotypes. Given that ~75% of nucleotide changes result in amino acid changes, we wouldn’t expect to see that under neutrality, so, indeed, protein-changing mutations are being kept out of the genome and other regions are acquiring diversity near the neutral expectation.
Purifying selection is meant to "eliminate" alleles that are deleterious, and, hence, a check on diversity. But that's not what we see going on here. Yes, there is a difference between which 'genes' (DNA) are being expressed and which are not, resulting in the distinction between the "protein" and "gene" diplotypes you point to. You choose to call this "purifying selection." Yet, the diverse "gene" forms remain. IOW, what is preventing the genome from changing its expression away from the "current" DNA being expressed and having the genome now express one of these alternative haplotypes or diplotypes? In fact, in terms of "adaptability" of an organism, one would surely suspect that upstream initiation sites would, if you will, turn "on" and turn "off" in response to environmental stimuli. In the author's minds, this possibility throws the whole idea of a "wild-type" allele into question. That's why they say that everything we've been taught about Mendelian genetics may have to now be re-taught. The same goes, obviously, for population genetics. Another Day; Another Bad Day for Darwinism.PaV
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PST
Zach, you state: "Good question. Evolutionary biologists would hypothesize stabilizing selection, meaning it is at a functional fitness peak, and that there may be evidence that this came about through evolutionary processes." After the fact story telling by Darwinists of a non-predicted, contrary, finding to their theory is part and parcel to Darwinism,,, EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo. Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man. Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability. Biologist Michael Behe observes: “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html "Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination" Dr. Michael Behe - 29:24 mark of following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s6XAXjiyRfM#t=1762sbornagain77
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PST
Dionisio, if a post of mine has a typo that makes extracting its meaning difficult then by all means ask for a clarification. But I'm not interested in the school master act, calling up typos while ignoring the many substantial faults in the OP.wd400
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PST
Gpuccio, you seem almost as confused as PaV, From the top,
While I certainly agree that the press release is not a good description of the paper (which is not really surprising, that is usually the case)
Indeed. Isn't it remarkable, then, that almost all coverage on new science here is a rehash or a press release collected by PhysOrg, ScienceDaily on some other PR aggregator?
But the most interesting part of the paper is exactly the connection of the differential distribution of variation with function.
I don't think they show this. Even if they did, Pav was wrong to think this paper was about the randomness of mutation, and wrong to thing non-random distribution among parental chromosomes was a problem for "Darwinism".
The thing you are apparently commenting (“More than 85 percent of all genes have no predominant form which occurs in more than half of all individual”) is interesting. It is not really a surprise, but the quantification of diversity at the gene level is an important fact. However, you say nothing about that aspect. Instead, you comment on other aspects, mixing two arguments. First, you say that: “If you take genes that have many variant sites (including synonymous ones), mix those up by recombination then package them into sets of two. Most of the time no single set of two genes is going to occur in 50% of people.” Correct. That is basic probability in a random system. But there is no reason to get a rather repetitive ration of about 60:40, and there is no reason at all that that ration be connected to function.
As you say, I was commenting on the 85% figure, which arises from that basic understanting of probability, and thus is not at all intestig (you do realise the 85% figure if for diplotypes, not unique genetic sequences?) The 60:40 ratio is probably another simple artifact, be we'll get to that.
“The paper found very strong evidence for purifying selection, if you care to read it.” So, with an interesting jump of thought, now you are admitting that there is something to be explained, and you just assume that it can be explained by “purifying selection”. I need not remind you that...
Pav (and apprently you) thought the high diversity meant purifying selection could be ruled out. In fact if (a) read the paper and (b) no even the first thing about population genetics you'd see they find evidence for purifying selection on proteins (though they don't explictly say this). The number of protein diplotypes is vastly lower than the number of DNA diplotypes. Given that ~75% of nucleotide changes result in amino acid changes, we wouldn't expect to see that under neutrality, so, indeed, protein-changing mutations are being kept out of the genome and other regions are acquiring diversity near the neutral expectation.
No. The paper says that the combination of variants have specific recurring distributions, and that those distributions are connected to specific functional sets of genes and therefore to functional regulation. For good or bad (see the part about tumors).
No, it did not. It found some protein haplotypes with substantially different amino acid substitutions relative to the reference genome come in pairs (i.e. two ahaplotypes with similarly different variants), others usually come packed up with something more like the wildtype. You need not invent any magic regulatory process for this -- it's almost certainly a result of the frequency distribution of haplotypes and the (exceedingly small effect sized) differences in broad functional classifications likely relate to the same. The 60:40 ratio is within genomes, and again requires no magic. If you take 12 different samples, each with thousands of replicates, you expect the each sample to converge on the population-wide expectation. That's all this paper found.
Now, true or false that it may be, that is not trivial. And it requires a rethinking. Therefore, I am interested. And I am available to rethink, even if for now I am not sure about how to rethink. Are you?
Of course I am quite capable of rethinking postions in the light of substantial evidence that such a rethink is required. There's just nothing very surprising in this paper.wd400
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PST
gpuccio: I think you have not taken the time to read my post carefully. Er ... well, um. gpuccio: I think that you would have more chances if you tried to attribute the observed pattern to positive selection. Stabilizing selection, which tends towards an equilibrium state, and encompasses purifying selection against the extremes. gpuccio: I don’t think that we have an immediate explanation for those findings. No, but there are immediate avenues for investigation by looking for evidence of evolutionary processes. bornagain77: A question, Does not the whole issue of the 60/40 split not strongly suggest that the gene is not nearly as important as Darwinists have maintained, and also that there is a top down control of genes that Darwinists did not, indeed that they could not, anticipate in their ‘bottom up’ scheme of reductive materialism? Good question. Evolutionary biologists would hypothesize stabilizing selection, meaning it is at a functional fitness peak, and that there may be evidence that this came about through evolutionary processes.Zachriel
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PST
BA: However, I am a medical doctor, but not a surgeon! :)gpuccio
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PST
BA: "A question, Does not the whole issue of the 60/40 split not strongly suggest that the gene is not nearly as important as Darwinists have maintained, and also that there is a top down control of genes that Darwinists did not, indeed that they could not, anticipate in their ‘bottom up’ scheme of reductive materialism?" You are probably right. However, I would advice to take some time to reflect on this paper and its implications. The concept is rather new, and it deserves careful evaluation.gpuccio
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PST
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply