dyanega at denr1.igis.uiuc.edu (Doug Yanega) wrote:
>I'll respond to Ram and Don Cates both here...
[snip answer to Ram]
>In article <50vle9$cu9 at canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>, cates at cc.umanitoba.ca>(Don Cates) wrote:
>> (Ram Samudrala)
>> >>> Well, it's one use of the word. I'd call the entire process, of a new
>> >>> trait arising from zero to non-zero frequency (via mutation,
>> >>> crossovers, magic, whatever) as evolution of that trait. I'd call the
>> >>> spread of it through the population natural selection (if that was the
>> >>> mechanism of the spread).
>>>> (Doug Yanega)
>> >>I have several texts on evolutionary genetics, not ONE does not call the
>> >>latter process evolution. Natural selection is a *subset* of the possible
>> >>modes of evolution.
>>>> Let's see if I understand what you mean. I will give some examples and
>> my understanding of what your interpretation woiuld be. Then I will
>> explain why I think you would be wrong.
Misunderstanding. Ram is the poster to whom I am replying, not you. So
any occurrances to "you" or "your" are references to him.
[snip a bit]
>>If I am wrong about your
>> interpretation I am sorry but it is an honest (possibly flawed) reading
>> of your post.
>>>> There is some change in function of a gene. You call this evolution.
[for "you" read Ram]
>Strike one. As I say above, there are NO definitions of evolution which
>relate to function. If there is a change in an allele, then it is
Yes, yes, I agree. Will the umpire reconsider his call?
The only place where I have a quibble with you is what I consider a bit
of an over-zealousness in its application. Since, as you state, only
populations evolve, how can you be sure that a change in an allele in an
individual is evolution if you don't have perfect knowledge of its
frequency in the population. In practical terms, though I am admittedly
not widely read in the subject, I cannot recall a single incidence of an
individual mutation being refered to as evolution. Surely one needs
stronger evidence than local novelty to be sure of evolution.
>> What if the change was not beneficial, but neutral? Would you say that
>> evolution took place? For me, it's only evolution if the change gets
>> passed on to a new generation.
>Close, but not quite. If there is a neutral mutation and a new allele
>results, then evolution occurred. If this is not passed on to the next
>generation, then the frequency has gone back down to zero, and evolution
>has resulted in the loss of that allele.
[snip 'evolution is change; gain, loss, whatever][yes, I agree]
Though I agree in principle (particularly for single-cell organisms), in
practical terms, how do you *know* that an individual incident of a
locally "new" allele really is new in the population as a whole and is
not just an example of a small but relatively stable in frequency
I have a problem (I don't believe I'm ideosyncratic here) with your
definition as stated when applied to multi-cellular organisms. Me for
In which of the following scenarios do you believe constitute evolution?
I step outside and sustain a UV induced skin cell mutation. (1)
The mutant cell dies. (1)
I produce mutant sperm. (1)
I have a wet dream. (1)
My mutant sperm fertilizes an egg. (2)
(there exists a mutant fertilized egg [any method of mutation])
The egg fails to divide. (2)
The resulting blastoma fails to implant. (2)
The fetus sponaneously aborts.(2)
The fetus is stillborn early.(3)
The neonate dies within a week. (3)
Any death before reproduction. (3)
One mutant offspring. (3)
Several mutant offspring. (3,4)
Several generations (expanding numbers) of mutants. (4)
The numbers represent my opinion.
(1) - no
(2) - unlikely to have enough information, probably no
(3) - unlikely to have enough information, possibly
(4) - almost certainly, blending to certainly depending on numbers and
[snip more of what I sincerely believe is a response based on a
misunderstanding of my position. (at *least* partly my fault).
The best thing about mistakes is the joy they bring others.