mutations and dependencies

[wildfunguy]

I have been sitting on this idea for a couple months, and I would appreciate some commentary.

I recently learned about epistasis and genetic heterogeneity. Apparently, you can get similar phenotypic results from mutations in different genes that are part of the same biological pathway. To me, this seems similar to computer programs that have depencies. If a program has a dependency, you must first fulfill the dependencies by downloading other programs.

This got me thinking about evolution. The processes underlying evolution don't merely change what's already there, they also make additions to what's already there. If this weren't the case, organisms could never become so complex. Common sense tells me that newer "additions" (mutations) will not have many dependencies built upon them, thus they will have more freedom to change (mutate) until they become something useful. It's only when more dependencies are built upon that mutation that it becomes difficult to change it without messing everything up.

Is this a good way to think about evolution?

[wildfunguy]

Never mind. This is actually the common argument against irreducible complexity.
I thought I was being original.

“… thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors …” (Muller, H. J. (1918) “Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors.” Genetics 3:422-499. [Free Text, Genetics Online] )

http://speciesdevblog.wordpress.com/201 ... omplexity/

- - - - -

Since it might be interesting, I'll give the prototypical concepts that led to me thinking of this idea.
Originally, I was thinking in terms of functions with specific requirements and functions with loose requirements.
Here's an example: Blunt object can be defined in terms of what it does. A blunt object serves the function of bashing or breaking stuff. Many things meet the requirements for being considered blunt objects, thus the requirements are loose.
As a complement to loose requirements, there are also functions with specific requirements. A given thing is less likely to meet the requirements for a function with specific requirements.

Furthermore, a thing's utility for that particular function will probably depend on how well it meets those requirements.

If this image is accurate, things that serve "vague functions" (functions with loose requirements) should have more variation because they can vary without losing much utility (usefulness).

At this point, I speculated that vague functions actually pave the way for specific functions.
First, I began to imagine this as a sort of "filling in the cracks" process, where things are polished over time.
One might also think of the specific function as an interaction of vague functions. Many complicated machines are actually made of relatively simple parts. Levers, wheels, axles, and pulleys aren't very complex on their own, but you can use them to make complicated things.


The similar concept articulated in the OP is what I thought of after learning about hypostasis; particularly, how the same hypostasis can result from mutations in different genes within the same biological pathway.

[wildfunguy]

I took the above quote from a wordpress article, and the wordpress article was quoting talkorigins. Here's the original source.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

[jinx25]

People dont seem to realise the complete absence of a genetic mechanism for adding NEW organ systems, biochemical pathways etc etc. 'Evolution' has damaged young peoples ability to think (Mutations are mistakes). For a good laugh email the loser who runs talk origins and ask him about abiogenesis. I am taking back biology for creation

[Darby]

Gene redundancy, anyone-?

[wildfunguy]

People dont seem to realise the complete absence of a genetic mechanism for adding NEW organ systems, biochemical pathways etc etc. 'Evolution' has damaged young peoples ability to think (Mutations are mistakes). For a good laugh email the loser who runs talk origins and ask him about abiogenesis. I am taking back biology for creation

Well, this was more of a comment than an argument, but I'll explain why this doesn't falsify the theory of evolution. To falsify a theory, you have to make an observation that is inconsistent with the theory. That's not what you are doing. Rather, you are pointing out that the appearance of organ systems has not yet been explained. If it's true that the appearance of organ systems hasn't been explained yet, then evolution might still explain it. On the other hand, finding an alternative explanation for the appearance of organ systems wouldn't show that the theory of evolution is totally wrong, it would merely show that the theory of evolution alone doesn't give us the whole picture.

Anyway, why can't organ systems become more complicated over time and eventually split into separate organ systems?

[jinx25]

I will assume you have not read 'Origin of species'.

Neofuncitonalization is a myth.

Hypothesis-observation-theory. The claim that all life that is and ever was shares a common ancestor with a single organism 3.5 billion years is an untestable conjecture/hypothesis. Mankind has 6,000 years of written history/empirical investigation of nature (another word for this starts with the letter 's' but i will not use that word as it is used dogmatically mostly in utter ignorance). No one has ever observed a fish produce something other than a fish, a bird produce something other than a bird, a cat produce something other than a cat, a dog produce something other than a dog etc etc. The claim that it can is not science. Genesis predicts animals bring forth after their 'kind' (fish produce fish, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats) This is science, this is observable. Every observed law of nature in written history (6,000 years) shows neo-darwinian 'evolution' to be a myth. Someone is welcome to take it by religious faith, but it is not science. BTW natural selection and speciation both reduce genetic diversity. Natural selection is horribly, horribly misrepresented by cult leaders (Dawkins et al).

[wildfunguy]

No, I haven't read it.

No one has ever observed a fish produce something other than a fish, a bird produce something other than a bird, a cat produce something other than a cat, a dog produce something other than a dog etc etc. The claim that it can is not science.

The theory of evolution doesn't rest on that claim. Darwin simply observed that offspring will carry a variety of traits. The evolutionary leaps occur (more or less) gradually over many generations.

Despite that, some animals are capable of giving birth to members of other species.

The birth of the first apparently healthy clone of an endangered species was announced today. Scientists at Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) of Worcester, Massachusetts, say they've got a peppy and "totally normal" banteng--a wild bovine from Java. It was born to a surrogate mother cow on 1 April.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... 08-01.html

- - - - -

Hypothesis-observation-theory. The claim that all life that is and ever was shares a common ancestor with a single organism 3.5 billion years is an untestable conjecture/hypothesis.

I think you mean
observation --> hypothesis --> test --> repeat until it's falisified or elevated to theory status

When you state the claim so broadly, it seems untestable, but the theory of evolution gets much more specific than that.
According to the theory of evolution, the fossil record should reveal a succession. A fossil that violates this would falsify the theory.
The theory of evolution also now rests on genetic evidence. Organsisms that should be related, according to the fossil record, will show more genetic similarity. This is also falsifiable.

[jinx25]

the fossil record should reveal a succession.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708768

In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.

You have not read Origins so this will not make any sense but for someone who has

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 69/?page=1

150 years later Darwins poison legacy lives on. They started the science journal nature, every thing you ever see on TV (Documentaries (Attenbourough is an evolutionist) on nature) , national geographic magazines, straw men debates (Dawkins vs some catholic n00b) 'Science vs religion' is the official strawman (it is actually science vs religion, science vs 'evolution' religion, science wins 'evolution' religion loses) all geared to indoctrinate into Evolution: The lie.

[JackBean]

I'm wondering why don't you publish your science, if is it so sure.

[jinx25]

There is young earth creation scientists but obv they will never be on TV/in the media, papers etc.

http://creation.com/nature-peer-review

This experience of mine is not uncommon among the scientists in the creation movement. All of us have published articles unrelated to creation in secular journals. Some of us have published articles that have data with creation implications, but not explicitly pointing out those implications. A good example is Robert Gentry, whose 1982 report [Geophysical Research Letters 9(10):1129–1130] of high helium retentions in zircons was the basis for my RATE helium diffusion project. But none of us, despite frequent tries, have been able to publish papers with explicitly creationist conclusions.

[wildfunguy]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708768

In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.

That ncbi article doesn't state that there is no succession. You've only shown that, if there are successions at these major transitions, those successions are difficult to track.
I said "(more or less) gradually" because there is both gradualism and puncuated equilibrium.

This explanation talks about punctuated equilibrium as the result of one or a few mutations that cause large change. However, punctuated equilibrium is any sudden, rapid change in a species and can also be the result of other causes, such as huge and sudden changes in the environment that result in more rapid changes in the organisms through harsher selection.

http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evo ... punct.html

On the other hand, the finding of a bird fossil from the precambrian era would falsify the theory of evolution. You might argue that, even if archeologists found a puzzle piece that didn't fit, they might force it into the puzzle anyway. I know next to nothing about homology, so I can't speak on that any further.
However, genetics provides the test as to whether we are assembling the archeological puzzle pieces correctly or not. For the most part, genetics verifies the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record, which suggests that evolutionary biologists are on the right track.