Neutral Theory and Substitution rates
-
There seems to be some confusion about what the neutral theory says about substitution rates. NickM seems to think that if the mutation rate is 1.1x10^-8 then 40 (neutral) mutations will occur with each birth and 40 will become fixed in each generation because rate of substitution = mutation rate.
NickM gives a wikipedia reference for a mutation rate of 1.1 x 10^-8.
What NickM doesn't seem to realize is the rate of substitution = 1.1 x 10^-8, not 40 mutations/ generation. The 40 is the number of mutations we can expect in each birth given a genome of 3.2 bp.
Neutral theory pertains to the mutation rate only, not the number of mutations. What is your degree in?
Ya see Nick in order to become fixed every member in the population has to haz it. Every member, biology 101. Well I guess if the population size is one.
EvoTard's finest...
There seems to be some confusion about what the neutral theory says about substitution rates. NickM seems to think that if the mutation rate is 1.1x10^-8 then 40 (neutral) mutations will occur with each birth and 40 will become fixed in each generation because rate of substitution = mutation rate.
NickM gives a wikipedia reference for a mutation rate of 1.1 x 10^-8.
Anyhow -- another thing you obviously don't understand at all is that even under completely neutral conditions, with no natural selection acting at all, and with nothing but genetic drift going on, *the substitution rate equals the mutation rate*.
If the genome size is 3.2 billion bases, if the human-chimp divergence time is 6 my ago, and if the generation size is 15 years, 1% divergence in point mutations takes 32 million mutations. That's 40 mutations/generation.
What NickM doesn't seem to realize is the rate of substitution = 1.1 x 10^-8, not 40 mutations/ generation. The 40 is the number of mutations we can expect in each birth given a genome of 3.2 bp.
Neutral theory pertains to the mutation rate only, not the number of mutations. What is your degree in?
Ya see Nick in order to become fixed every member in the population has to haz it. Every member, biology 101. Well I guess if the population size is one.
EvoTard's finest...
posted by Joe G @ 10:59 AM
60 Comments:
At 12:16 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Ya see Nick in order to become fixed every member in the population has to haz it"
Wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2429884/
"...fixed effects (mutations escaping drift loss)"
But feel free to cite support for your assertion.
At 12:27 PM,
Joe G said…
You are an ignorant fuck, Richie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(population_genetics)
In population genetics, fixation is the change in a gene pool from a situation where there exist at least two variants of a particular gene (allele) to a situation where only one of the alleles remains.
and:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2607448/
The fixation probability, the probability that the frequency of a particular allele in a population will ultimately reach unity, is one of the cornerstones of population genetics.
You are a dumbass richie...
At 1:01 PM,
NickM said…
Wow, more silliness. Neutral theory is about many things, but one of the most important topics is the substitution rate, and how it is connected to the mutation rate.
If, say, 40 mutations are happening per individual per generation (which is about what you get if you take mutations-per-site-per-generation times genome length in sites), this is happening in *each individual in the population*.
Thus, a huge number of mutations are happening *in the population* each generation. If effective population size was 10,000, this would be 40 x 10,000 = 400,000 new mutations added to the population each generation.
In a neutral situation, the vast majority of these new mutations are eventually lost from the population by neutral drift.
But, by chance, a few of them will spread to fixation. The odds are essentially the same as the odds of winning the lottery. Each mutation's chance of spreading to fixation is 1/(population size). (I'm using the population size of the haploid loci, if you use diploid population as N then it's 2N).
So, most neutral mutations die out, but a few spread to fixation. On average, it works out that the substitution rate equals the mutation rate.
So, a huge number of substitutions can happen without selection going on at all.
At 1:09 PM,
NickM said…
Or, shorter version:
http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/terry/Classes/s260.1998/Week13a/week13a/node10.html
At 2:39 PM,
Joe G said…
Nick, you are confused-
If, say, 40 mutations are happening per individual per generation (which is about what you get if you take mutations-per-site-per-generation times genome length in sites), this is happening in *each individual in the population*.
yes, but not the same 40 mutations. In order for those 40 mutations to be fixed every individual, even the parents and grandparents, would have to have them.
That is the meaning of being fixed- UNITY- which means all have to have it.
Thus, a huge number of mutations are happening *in the population* each generation. If effective population size was 10,000, this would be 40 x 10,000 = 400,000 new mutations added to the population each generation.
Yup but to become fixed every individual has to have it.
But, by chance, a few of them will spread to fixation.
maybe and maybe not. The question is how long will it take and how many will become fixed?
Each mutation's chance of spreading to fixation is 1/(population size). (I'm using the population size of the haploid loci, if you use diploid population as N then it's 2N).
Not for neutral mutations. Then it is the mutation rate.
Also if it has a 1/N chance of becoming fixed that means it has a (N - 1/N) chance of getting lost. And taht doesn't even take into account any random effects that would wipe out all mutations.
So, a huge number of substitutions can happen without selection going on at all.
Again, not the issue.
How many and how long does it take?
With a mutation rate of 1.1 x 10^-8 that says quite a long, long time.
At 3:17 PM,
Joe G said…
OK NickM- lookie what I found:
Genetic drift
At 3:51 PM,
Joe G said…
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
For neutral alleles that do fix, it takes an average of 4N generations to do so.
At 5:29 PM,
NickM said…
So what's the problem again, JoeG? None of the links you have just posted have contradicted anything I said.
You claimed there wasn't enough time to get the observed amount of difference between the chimp and human genomes.
First I pointed out that the "10%" difference number comes from including things like indels, which happen in big chunks rather than in point mutations. These required only an indel substitution every ~15 generations, not some impossible number.
Then we turned to the point mutations (the 1% difference), and I pointed out that the observed amount of substitution difference between chimp and human approximately equals what we should expect given the time of the chimp-human split and the observed mutation rate. Nothing you have posted since has contradicted this.
Just admit that your original claim was wrong. That's the scientific way.
At 5:35 PM,
NickM said…
Or read p. 239 here: http://books.google.com/books?id=ng85sd1UR7EC&lpg=PA72&ots=pqL73i-4iH&dq=4N%20generations&pg=PA239#v=onepage&q=substitution%20rate&f=false
At 6:12 PM,
Joe G said…
NickM:
So what's the problem again, JoeG? None of the links you have just posted have contradicted anything I said.
You said that there would be a number of mutations that become fixed in one/ each generation. That is obviously false
You claimed there wasn't enough time to get the observed amount of difference between the chimp and human genomes.
There is if you rely on design. There isn't if you rely on anything else.
First I pointed out that the "10%" difference number comes from including things like indels, which happen in big chunks rather than in point mutations.
Something I have known for years.
These required only an indel substitution every ~15 generations, not some impossible number.
More like 10 generations and there isn't anything to support a fixation rate that high. And that is just for indels, which is a fraction of the differences that need to be accounted for.
Then we turned to the point mutations (the 1% difference), and I pointed out that the observed amount of substitution difference between chimp and human approximately equals what we should expect given the time of the chimp-human split and the observed mutation rate. Nothing you have posted since has contradicted this.
Everything I posted has contradicted that.
4N generations to get 1 neutral mutation fixed (estimate), where N is the population size.
Haldane published 1 in 300 generations and experiments have it at over 600 generations for BENEFICIAL mutations which will become fixed more readily than any neutral mutation.
So either you don't understand anything I have posted, which is pretty obvious because of your strawman you refuted when you first arrived, your avoidance of the rest of the mutations beyond indels, and your obvious fuck-up on the math.
And now we have your reliance on never heard of substitution rates for the indels.
But yes I will revise my original claim to say:
Given a 10%+ genetic difference between chimps and humans some number of mutations will have to become fixed each year.
(And all I need is one-
all I need is one-
all I need is 1, 1.
1 is all I need)
At 7:44 PM,
NickM said…
Ah, I see your problem. You think that one mutation (indel or point mutation) has to originate, then spread to fixation, then the next one has to repeat the same process.
This would indeed be slow.
Unfortunately for you, many, many mutations can be drifting in a population at the same time. All of them, in fact. First, we have 23 pairs of chromosomes, and the frequency of any variant in the chromosome 1 population can go up or down independent of what happens to the frequency of any variant in the chromosome 2 population.
Second, the chromosomes all experience many crossing-over events each meiosis, so really each chromosome is divided up into many small segments which segregate independently and get recombined each generation.
4N generations to get 1 neutral mutation fixed (estimate), where N is the population size.
That's true, but that's just for one mutation, and just for the mutations that are lucky enough to be fixed (the vast majority are never fixed, and are instead lost, thus their "time to fixation" is infinity).
In reality we have something like (20 new mutations per individual) * (N = population size) entering the population every single generation. Most are lost, a few are fixed. The average rate at which the population fixes mutations is equal to mu, the mutation rate.
You are talking about something different, the average time to fixation for a single mutation which, after the fact, we know has fixed. Doesn't effect my point, nor your wrongness about your overall claim.
At 7:57 PM,
Joe G said…
NickM,
YOU are the problem. You require accumulations of mutations and they have to culiminate in the individuals of today.
320,000,000+ ACCUMULATED differences.
How do mutations accumulate if they don't become fixed first?
Once lost it can no longer accumulate...
At 11:20 AM,
Zachriel said…
Kimura, Population genetics, molecular evolution, and the neutral theory: "If the mutant is selectively neutral, the probability of ultimate fixation is equal to its initial frequency, that is u=1/(2N) in the diploid population, and therefore, from Eq. (1), we have Ks=v. In other words, for neutral alleles, the rate of evolution is equal to the mutation rate."
It's a very simple derivation. A simple example should suffice. Consider a haploid population, size N) with one neutral mutation on average per individual (say a genome of 10^8 and a mutation rate of 10^-8). The chance of fixation is the inverse of the population size, or 1/N. But we have N mutations per generation. The Expected Rate of fixation is therefore N*1/N. That is, one mutation will fix on average per generation.
At 11:40 AM,
Joe G said…
Zacho:
That is, one mutation will fix on average per generation.
How is that even possible given a population over 3?
If the offspring, ie the next generation, gets a new mutation, guess what? The parents do not have it so it cannot become fixed until they die. And then it becomes fixed if the next generation has a population of 1.
If the mutation rate is 1.1 x 10-8 then that is the number of mutations, and since that is not a whole number and is much less than 1, you are obviously clueless.
But thanks for the entertainment.
At 11:52 AM,
Joe G said…
Zacho,
Talk Origins has a neutral mutation becoming fixed every 4N generations (where N = population size).
At 2:35 PM,
Joe G said…
Relevant references (from genetic drift- see above) that support my claim, which is really the evolutionary biology claim:
Hedrick, Philip W. (2004). Genetics of Populations, 737, Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Daniel Hartl, Andrew Clark (2007). Principles of Population Genetics, 4th edition
Wen-Hsiung Li, Dan Graur (1991). Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution, Sinauer Associates.
Kimura, Motoo (2001). Theoretical Aspects of Population Genetics, 232, Princeton University Press.
Masel J, King OD, Maughan H (2007). The loss of adaptive plasticity during long periods of environmental stasis. American Naturalist 169 (1): 38–46.
At 2:48 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: How is that even possible given a population over 3?
The chance of fixation is 1/N, so if the population is 100, then the chance that it will eventually reach fixation is 1/100. However, given our example, 100 mutations are occurring in each generation. So we can expect, on average that 100* 1/100 or one will reach eventually reach fixation. Each generation.
Joe G: Talk Origins has a neutral mutation becoming fixed every 4N generations (where N = population size).
That's the *time* to fixation. With our example, 4N generations ago, an average of 100 mutations occurred, 1/100 of which are now reaching fixation. On average, of course.
At 2:58 PM,
Joe G said…
Zacho:
The chance of fixation is 1/N, so if the population is 100, then the chance that it will eventually reach fixation is 1/100. However, given our example, 100 mutations are occurring in each generation. So we can expect, on average that 100* 1/100 or one will reach eventually reach fixation. Each generation.
That is just plain stupid. If 100 different mutations are occurring how can one reach fixation in one generation?
You have no idea what you are talking about and it still shows.
Talk Origins has a neutral mutation becoming fixed every 4N generations (where N = population size).
That's the *time* to fixation
No, that is the number of generations. So with a population of 100 that would mean it would take 400 generations for one neutral mutation to reach fixation.
Obviously you are still clueless when it comes to math.
But please feel free to produce some positive evidence for your claim.
At 5:23 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: That is just plain stupid. If 100 different mutations are occurring how can one reach fixation in one generation?
They don't get fixed in one generation. About one in a hundred get fixed after 4N generations. on average. However, new mutations are constantly occuring. The ones being fixed in the current generation occurred 4N generations ago, on average.
Joe G: So with a population of 100 that would mean it would take 400 generations for one neutral mutation to reach fixation.
That's right. On average Only one of the 100 would reach fixation, and it would take 400 generations, on average for that to occur. As mutations are being introduced in every generation, that means there is a constant stream of mutations becoming fixed.
Let's leave aside the on average bit, and assume exactly 100 neutral mutations per generation in a population of 100 and a fixation time of 400 generations. In generation 0, we have 100 mutations, over time 99 will be lost, but one will fix in generation 400. In generation 1, we have 100 mutations, over time 99 will be lost, but one will fix in generation 401. In generation 2, we have 100 mutations, over time 99 will be lost, but one will fix in generation 402. And so on. There will be one mutation becoming fixed in each generation, perpetually.
At 6:04 PM,
Joe G said…
Zacho:
They don't get fixed in one generation.
Zacho earlier:
That is, one mutation will fix on average per generation.
Zacho:
About one in a hundred get fixed after 4N generations.
Or most likely not.
Zacho:
The ones being fixed in the current generation occurred 4N generations ago, on average.
If there even was 4N generations.
So with a population of 100 that would mean it would take 400 generations for one neutral mutation to reach fixation.
That's right.
OK so you agree with what I said. What is your point?
As mutations are being introduced in every generation, that means there is a constant stream of mutations becoming fixed.
No. That just means there is a constant stream of variation.
Again it is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.
In generation 0, we have 100 mutations, over time 99 will be lost, but one will fix in generation 400.
Too many unknowns to make that claim. The equations do not take into account the every day stresses of the real world. And then there is population growth and competetion with advantageous traits.
But anyway seeing that you are so confident in your spewage perhaps you should try to get it published. Then maybe someone will care.
At 9:38 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: The equations do not take into account the every day stresses of the real world.
Given the said model of neutral mutations, the rate of fixation of new neutral mutations is equal to the mutation rate. It's a simple and direct result.
At 9:57 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: But anyway seeing that you are so confident in your spewage perhaps you should try to get it published. Then maybe someone will care.
It's already been published, by someone named Motoo Kimura.
Kimura, Population genetics, molecular evolution, and the neutral theory: "If the mutant is selectively neutral, the probability of ultimate fixation is equal to its initial frequency, that is u=1/(2N) in the diploid population, and therefore, from Eq. (1), we have Ks=v. In other words, for neutral alleles, the rate of evolution is equal to the mutation rate."
At 10:04 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Given the said model of neutral mutations, the rate of fixation of new neutral mutations is equal to the mutation rate. It's a simple and direct result.
Except it isn't so simple and not even close to being direct.
Mutation rates vary and they are all very, very small numbers, ie 10^-8.
Apparently you have no idea what that means.
At 10:06 PM,
Joe G said…
But anyway seeing that you are so confident in your spewage perhaps you should try to get it published. Then maybe someone will care.
Zachriel:
It's already been published, by someone named Motoo Kimura.
Unfortunately for you he never says anything about serial fixation of neutral muations after some threshold has been crossed.
IOW Zacho you are a pretentious liar.
At 10:23 PM,
Joe G said…
OK wait-
substitution rate = mutation rate
However the mutation rate for neutral muations is unknown which means the substitution rate is also unknown.
At 5:49 AM,
troy said…
Check this out:
Link
"Thus, the rate of fixation for a mutation not subject to selection is simply the rate of introduction of such mutations."
At 9:07 AM,
Joe G said…
Wow check out troy, linking to shit that we have already discussed and agreed upon.
Hey troy:
However the mutation rate for neutral muations is unknown which means the substitution rate is also unknown.
At 9:09 AM,
Joe G said…
All that said theoretical musings are fine but sooner or later there needs to be some confirming experimental evidence, which is still lacking for the neutral theory pertaining to the fixation of neutral mutations.
At 9:55 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Except it isn't so simple and not even close to being direct. Mutation rates vary and they are all very, very small numbers, ie 10^-8. Apparently you have no idea what that means.
It means that *if* we have a genome of length 10^8 and a mutation rate of 10^-8 per site per generation, then the expected value is one mutation per genome per generation. If there are 100 genomes in the population, then the expected value is 100 mutations across the population per generation. From your original post:
Joe G: What NickM doesn't seem to realize is the rate of substitution = 1.1 x 10^-8, not 40 mutations/ generation. The 40 is the number of mutations we can expect in each birth given a genome of 3.2 bp.
The rate of substitution is equal to the rate of neutral mutations. That means if the rate is 40 neutral mutations per birth per generation, then the expect value is 40 (previously occurring) mutations becoming fixed across the population in each generation. As Nick said.
At 10:13 AM,
Joe G said…
Zacho:
That means if the rate is 40 neutral mutations per birth per generation, then the expect value is 40 (previously occurring) mutations becoming fixed across the population in each generation.
Wow, you are either really stupid or really ignorant.
40 is the number of mutations, not the rate.
All that said theoretical musings are fine but sooner or later there needs to be some confirming experimental evidence, which is still lacking for the neutral theory pertaining to the fixation of neutral mutations.
It is amazing what evotards will believe if they think it supoorts their claims...
At 10:15 AM,
Joe G said…
BTW Zacho- you need to know the neutral mutation rate because the mutation rate includes all kinds, neutral, deletrious and beneficial. And that does not wash with the equation.
At 12:19 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: 40 is the number of mutations, not the rate.
If the rate is 1.1e-8 per base per generation, then if the genome has a length of 3.2e9 bases, the rate is ~40 per genome per generation.
Is there a reason why all our comments go into moderation?
At 12:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Zacho:
If the rate is 1.1e-8 per base per generation, then if the genome has a length of 3.2e9 bases, the rate is ~40 per genome per generation.
Wrong- you are confusing the number with the rate.
Not only that you don't have any experimental evidence to support that number.
So you need to start there. And if you don't have said experimental evidence then you don't have anything.
Is there a reason why all our comments go into moderation?
Yes.
At 1:58 PM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: If the rate is 1.1e-8 per base per generation, then if the genome has a length of 3.2e9 bases, the rate is ~40 per genome per generation.
Joe G: Wrong- you are confusing the number with the rate.
1.1e-8 mutations per base per generation is a rate. 4e1 per genome per generation is a rate.
At 2:10 PM,
Joe G said…
Why are you refusing to provide experimental support for your claims?
What is your evidence that there are 40 neutral mutations per genome per generation?
At 3:50 PM,
NickM said…
Joe G said...
Why are you refusing to provide experimental support for your claims?
What is your evidence that there are 40 neutral mutations per genome per generation?
Now that you finally seem to get that 1.1 x 10^-8 mutations PER BASE PER BIRTH times 3.2 x 10*9 bases in the human genome = 35.2 mutations PER GENOME PER BIRTH, and that *both* of these are rates, we can discuss your above question.
1. The 1.1 x 10^-8 mutations number came from experimental data, see the wikipedia page for the reference. There are several common experiments to determine mutation rates, e.g.:
(a) sequence the parents and the offspring, and count the differences
(b) sequence a man and the DNA of some of his sperm cells (popular back in the day due to the commonness of said sperm cells)
2. Now, how many of these mutations are neutral? Answer: almost all of them, since only a few percent of the genome codes for genes or gene regulation, and even in genes most point mutations are neutral because of the redundancy of the genetic code.
There is some evidence that some "neutral" mutations (like the third position in DNA codons) might not be exactly completely selectively neutral; some of them might be very slightly beneficial or detrimental. But selection can only "see" mutations with a certain minumum selective value (the value is something like s must be greater than 1/N, I don't remember exactly). So if the selective disadvantage of a mutation is only 1/10,000, it would be effectively neutral in a species like humans with a historic effective population size of something like 1/10,000. And, anything with an s anywhere close to 1/10,000 would also act nearly neutral (i.e. genetic drift would have a big impact on its fate, compare to selection).
At 3:59 PM,
Joe G said…
NickM:
1. The 1.1 x 10^-8 mutations number came from experimental data, see the wikipedia page for the reference.
Not under dispute.
2. Now, how many of these mutations are neutral? Answer: almost all of them, since only a few percent of the genome codes for genes or gene regulation, and even in genes most point mutations are neutral because of the redundancy of the genetic code.
Untestable gibberish as there is no way to A) test what % codes for necessary stuff and B) we know of many alleged silent mutations that have an impact- that is due to the way the coding works.
That said you need some experimental data, or real-world data, to support your claim of substitution rates.
You don't have that or for some reason you refuse to present it.
So until you do you don't have anything but a bald assertion.
At 4:59 PM,
Zachriel said…
NickM: But selection can only "see" mutations with a certain minumum selective value (the value is something like s must be greater than 1/N, I don't remember exactly).
That's right. A mutation will be effectively neutral if |s| << 1/(2N), diploid.
At 5:00 PM,
Joe G said…
And still refusing to provide experimental support for your claims...
At 5:19 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: And still refusing to provide experimental support for your claims...
We didn't make any experimental claims. Rather, we answered a question about how neutral mutations would spread in a population given a certain rate of neutral mutation.
At 5:24 PM,
Joe G said…
Zacho:
Rather, we answered a question about how neutral mutations would spread in a population given a certain rate of neutral mutation.
Your "answer" is unsupported, meaning it isn't an answer at all.
BTW the "how" part is just by chance, so you didn't answer how.
At 5:28 PM,
Joe G said…
Zacho:
That means if the rate is 40 neutral mutations per birth per generation, then the expect value is 40 (previously occurring) mutations becoming fixed across the population in each generation.
Pure bullshit- meaning without experimental support. And until you get experimental support it will be pure bullshit.
So either have at it or take a trip down the Shenandoah and out to sea, if you catch my drift...
At 5:30 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Your "answer" is unsupported, meaning it isn't an answer at all.
Huh? Not only did we explain why the substitution rate is equal to the mutation rate, but we directly cited Kimura. Here it is again:
Kimura, Population genetics, molecular evolution, and the neutral theory: "If the mutant is selectively neutral, the probability of ultimate fixation is equal to its initial frequency, that is u=1/(2N) in the diploid population, and therefore, from Eq. (1), we have Ks=v. In other words, for neutral alleles, the rate of evolution is equal to the mutation rate."
At 6:18 PM,
Joe G said…
Way to prove your cowardly nature by not even addressing what I post.
Zacho:
Not only did we explain why the substitution rate is equal to the mutation rate, but we directly cited Kimura.
Unfortunately for you imura doesn't support your claim of:
That means if the rate is 40 neutral mutations per birth per generation, then the expect value is 40 (previously occurring) mutations becoming fixed across the population in each generation.
You are a lying bluffer. Which means what you aee saying is pure bullshit- meaning without experimental support. And until you get experimental support it will be pure bullshit.
At 9:18 PM,
Joe G said…
Look, all I am asking for is evidence to support your claim:
That means if the rate is 40 neutral mutations per birth per generation, then the expect value is 40 (previously occurring) mutations becoming fixed across the population in each generation.
I have provided references that say 4N generations for 1.
NickM started out with a population of 10,000. Do you understand what that means?
At 1:55 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: NickM started out with a population of 10,000. Do you understand what that means?
Yes, it means the 40 or so neutral mutations reaching fixation today occurred 40,000 generations ago on average.
At 2:27 PM,
Joe G said…
And how can we tell?
What is the empirical evidence to support your claim?
At 2:40 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: There seems to be some confusion about what the neutral theory says about substitution rates.
Joe G: And how can we tell? What is the empirical evidence to support your claim?
It's not an empirical claim, but an entailment of the neutral theory model of evolution you introduced in your original post.
At 3:00 PM,
Joe G said…
Zacho:
It's not an empirical claim, but an entailment of the neutral theory model of evolution you introduced in your original post.
I didn't introduce the neutral theory. Kimura did.
And how was it determined that it is an entailment without any empirical support?
At 3:08 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: I didn't introduce the neutral theory. Kimura did.
You brought up neutral theory in your original post.
Joe G: And how was it determined that it is an entailment without any empirical support?
A theory is a model, in this case, a model of how neutral mutations will propagate through a population. Given that some mutations are neutral (such as synonymous substitutions or bases in a pseudogene), their statistical distribution can be predicted. In particular, the rate of fixation of neutral mutations will be equal to the neutral mutation rate.
At 3:36 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: And how was it determined that it is an entailment without any empirical support?
Do you know what "entailment" means?
At 4:18 PM,
Joe G said…
Zacho:
Do you know what "entailment" means?
Yes I do. So how do you know what you said is an entailment of the theory?
At 4:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Zacho:
You brought up neutral theory in your original post.
That is because NickM brought it up in the other thread about chimp and human DNA.
But bringing it up isn't the same as introducing it.
And how was it determined that it is an entailment without any empirical support?
A theory is a model, in this case, a model of how neutral mutations will propagate through a population.
Can't model something scientifically without evidetiary support.
Given that some mutations are neutral (such as synonymous substitutions or bases in a pseudogene), their statistical distribution can be predicted.
A prediction without empirical or evidentiary support is worthless.
In particular, the rate of fixation of neutral mutations will be equal to the neutral mutation rate.
Yup and you can say anything as long as you are not required to support it. And that makes it pure bullshit, as I said before.
At 5:34 PM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: Do you know what "entailment" means?
Joe G: Yes I do.
Then tell us what an entailment is.
At 6:02 PM,
Joe G said…
There are several definitions but I would say you are using it to mean "a necessary accompaniment or consequence", which is why I asked So how do you know what you said is an entailment of the theory?
You avoided that question because you have intellectual integrity issues.
Declaring something to be an entailment and having evidence that it really is are two different things. Not that you could understand that.
At 6:34 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: So how do you know what you said is an entailment of the theory?
Because it follows directly from the premises. Assuming unlinked, random neutral mutations μ, in a diploid population N:
The frequency in the population of a novel mutation is 1/(2N).
The probability of fixation of a mutation is its frequency in the population.
The number of new mutations in the population is 2Nμ.
Therefore, the rate of fixation of neutral mutations is 2Nμ * 1/(2N) = μ.
Some mutations are clearly neutral, such as bases in pseudogenes. And the evidence supports their neutral evolution.
At 6:42 PM,
Joe G said…
So how do you know what you said is an entailment of the theory?
Because it follows directly from the premises.
But all we have is your word for that. And that means it is meaningless.
You can keep repeating all the unverified equations you want, that doesn't make them correct. Nor does it mean that you understand them.
So no experimental support for the bald declaration of entailment.
When Einstein first published his theory of relativity his calculations contained an entailment. Strange thing is no one really believed him until Eddington confirmed it via a natural experiment. And it has been confirmed over and over again via experimentation.
The neutral theory's entailment is stuck on paper and that renders it moot to the real world.
At 6:49 PM,
Joe G said…
Declaring something to be an entailment and having evidence that it really is are two different things. Not that you could understand that.
And Zacho obviously doesn't understand that.
Another prediction fulfilled...
At 9:01 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: But all we have is your word for that.
Um, no. An entailment follows from the premises of the model, which we have shown. All you have left is handwaving. Good luck with that.
At 10:28 AM,
Joe G said…
But all we have is your word for that.
Zacho:
Um, no.
Without empirical evidence all we have is your word for it. And you have admitted your claim does not have empirical support.
An entailment follows from the premises of the model,...
An entailment without empirical support is meaningless. And a model without empirical support is a pipe-dream.
...which we have shown.
You have shown that you are bloviating evotards who have no intention of ever supporting anything you claim.
Good luck with that.
Post a Comment
<< Home