3 ms·

1. The notion of "local optima" for biological species is ill conceived. The world is complex and extremely dynamic; "local optima" isn't a very meaningful conc

by GuiA 12y ago

1. The notion of "local optima" for biological species is ill conceived. The world is complex and extremely dynamic; "local optima" isn't a very meaningful concept in the context of evolution. 2. "Most mutations are harmful" -> this is patently false. A lot of mutations are inconsequential, some are harmful, some are beneficial. 3. "sexually reproducing organisms, theoretically, will decrease their mutation rate over time" -> this isn't true. Mutation rate is variable over species and over time. 4. DNA duplication is a complex biological process with many moving parts. There isn't such a straightforward thing as a "gene that decreases mutation".

Houshalter 12y ago
>The notion of "local optima" for biological species is ill conceived. The world is complex and extremely dynamic; "local optima" isn't a very meaningful concept in the context of evolution. Changing environments can help organisms break out of local optima, but that doesn't imply they don't exist. There are countless examples of organisms getting stuck in local optima. E.g. horseshoe crabs haven't changed in hundreds of millions of years. Most traits in general are stuck in local optima. Theoretically large changes could improve them, but it's unlikely to happen by random chance. >"Most mutations are harmful" -> this is patently false. A lot of mutations are inconsequential, some are harmful, some are beneficial. Who are you quoting? I never said that. I said most non-neutral mutations are harmful. Neutral mutations don't do anything and so don't matter. >Mutation rate is variable over species and over time. >DNA duplication is a complex biological process with many moving parts. There isn't such a straightforward thing as a "gene that decreases mutation" There are many mechanisms that control mutations, like DNA repair and copying mechanisms, or shielding from radiation and mutagens, etc. Of course it's probably very difficult to reach perfection, which is why organisms still evolve. I just said theoretically, evolution is always pushing towards less evolution.
- GuiA 12y ago
  > E.g. horseshoe crabs haven't changed in hundreds of millions of years. No. They may have barely changed in morphology, but that doesn't mean they are "stuck in local optima". And even then, it seems they have changed morphologically in some ways. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/horseshoe-crabs-arent-living-fossils-2/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/horsesho... > I said most non-neutral mutations are harmful. That is just false, and I don't know how you came to that idea. > Neutral mutations don't do anything and so don't matter. Again, false. Mutations can have no impact on a population until that mutation interacts with another mutation (e.g. because the population bred with another population that has other mutations), resulting in a net evolutionary advantage for the species over time. > Of course it's probably very difficult to reach perfection, which is why organisms still evolve. There isn't a notion of "reaching perfection" in evolution. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. > I just said theoretically, evolution is always pushing towards less evolution. No. There is no "theoretically"- evolution is a well observed and documented process. And if you observe and document the real world, you will notice that the evolutionary process is certainly not pushing towards "less evolution". Please stop posting misinformed comments that may confuse or mislead readers who take them to assume you have a good understanding of the topic. If you wish to comment on the topic, please take the time to inform yourself first from scientists who work in the field, rather than from your own baseless speculation. A good start is here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq....
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    >They may have barely changed in morphology, but that doesn't mean they are "stuck in local optima". That's exactly what that means. Their morphology is stuck in a local optima at the very least. And unless you really believe horseshoe crabs are the ultimate form of life and it's impossible for organisms to improve at all, then it is "local". >That is just false, and I don't know how you came to that idea. And I don't know how you disagree with it. Do you really believe that most mutations are beneficial? Really? If so, exposing yourself to radiation would be beneficial for your health. Or your childrens fitness. This is just utterly ridiculous and defies all logic. Mutations are almost all negative. >Again, false. Mutations can have no impact on a population until that mutation interacts with another mutation (e.g. because the population bred with another population that has other mutations), resulting in a net evolutionary advantage for the species over time. Then, by definition, it's not a neutral mutation. It's slightly positive, or slightly negative, or really positive, or really negative, but if it has an effect at all, it's not neutral. >There isn't a notion of "reaching perfection" in evolution. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. Perfect as in having the best fitness possible. A global optima. Where no mutation could improve it at all. >No. There is no "theoretically"- evolution is a well observed and documented process. And if you observe and document the real world, you will notice that the evolutionary process is certainly not pushing towards "less evolution". I'm sorry you don't know what the word "theoretically" means. My hypothesis is "If there is a gene that decreases mutation rates in a sexually reproducing population, it should be selected for over time." This hypothesis would be difficult but not impossible to test in the real world. If we could find a gene that decreases mutation rates and introduce it to an animal that doesn't have it, and observe them for many generations. It could also be easily tested in computer simulations. >Please stop posting misinformed comments that may confuse or mislead readers who take them to assume you have a good understanding of the topic. If you wish to comment on the topic, please take the time to inform yourself first from scientists who work in the field, rather than from your own baseless speculation. Please stop being pedantic and misinterpreting everything I say.

by GuiA 12y ago

Houshalter 12y ago

>The notion of "local optima" for biological species is ill conceived. The world is complex and extremely dynamic; "local optima" isn't a very meaningful concept in the context of evolution. Changing environments can help organisms break out of local optima, but that doesn't imply they don't exist. There are countless examples of organisms getting stuck in local optima. E.g. horseshoe crabs haven't changed in hundreds of millions of years. Most traits in general are stuck in local optima. Theoretically large changes could improve them, but it's unlikely to happen by random chance. >"Most mutations are harmful" -> this is patently false. A lot of mutations are inconsequential, some are harmful, some are beneficial. Who are you quoting? I never said that. I said most non-neutral mutations are harmful. Neutral mutations don't do anything and so don't matter. >Mutation rate is variable over species and over time. >DNA duplication is a complex biological process with many moving parts. There isn't such a straightforward thing as a "gene that decreases mutation" There are many mechanisms that control mutations, like DNA repair and copying mechanisms, or shielding from radiation and mutagens, etc. Of course it's probably very difficult to reach perfection, which is why organisms still evolve. I just said theoretically, evolution is always pushing towards less evolution.

GuiA 12y ago
> E.g. horseshoe crabs haven't changed in hundreds of millions of years. No. They may have barely changed in morphology, but that doesn't mean they are "stuck in local optima". And even then, it seems they have changed morphologically in some ways. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/horseshoe-crabs-arent-living-fossils-2/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/horsesho... > I said most non-neutral mutations are harmful. That is just false, and I don't know how you came to that idea. > Neutral mutations don't do anything and so don't matter. Again, false. Mutations can have no impact on a population until that mutation interacts with another mutation (e.g. because the population bred with another population that has other mutations), resulting in a net evolutionary advantage for the species over time. > Of course it's probably very difficult to reach perfection, which is why organisms still evolve. There isn't a notion of "reaching perfection" in evolution. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. > I just said theoretically, evolution is always pushing towards less evolution. No. There is no "theoretically"- evolution is a well observed and documented process. And if you observe and document the real world, you will notice that the evolutionary process is certainly not pushing towards "less evolution". Please stop posting misinformed comments that may confuse or mislead readers who take them to assume you have a good understanding of the topic. If you wish to comment on the topic, please take the time to inform yourself first from scientists who work in the field, rather than from your own baseless speculation. A good start is here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq....
- Houshalter 12y ago
  >They may have barely changed in morphology, but that doesn't mean they are "stuck in local optima". That's exactly what that means. Their morphology is stuck in a local optima at the very least. And unless you really believe horseshoe crabs are the ultimate form of life and it's impossible for organisms to improve at all, then it is "local". >That is just false, and I don't know how you came to that idea. And I don't know how you disagree with it. Do you really believe that most mutations are beneficial? Really? If so, exposing yourself to radiation would be beneficial for your health. Or your childrens fitness. This is just utterly ridiculous and defies all logic. Mutations are almost all negative. >Again, false. Mutations can have no impact on a population until that mutation interacts with another mutation (e.g. because the population bred with another population that has other mutations), resulting in a net evolutionary advantage for the species over time. Then, by definition, it's not a neutral mutation. It's slightly positive, or slightly negative, or really positive, or really negative, but if it has an effect at all, it's not neutral. >There isn't a notion of "reaching perfection" in evolution. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. Perfect as in having the best fitness possible. A global optima. Where no mutation could improve it at all. >No. There is no "theoretically"- evolution is a well observed and documented process. And if you observe and document the real world, you will notice that the evolutionary process is certainly not pushing towards "less evolution". I'm sorry you don't know what the word "theoretically" means. My hypothesis is "If there is a gene that decreases mutation rates in a sexually reproducing population, it should be selected for over time." This hypothesis would be difficult but not impossible to test in the real world. If we could find a gene that decreases mutation rates and introduce it to an animal that doesn't have it, and observe them for many generations. It could also be easily tested in computer simulations. >Please stop posting misinformed comments that may confuse or mislead readers who take them to assume you have a good understanding of the topic. If you wish to comment on the topic, please take the time to inform yourself first from scientists who work in the field, rather than from your own baseless speculation. Please stop being pedantic and misinterpreting everything I say.