Genome complexity: how plants avoid inbreeding II (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, July 27, 2018, 01:18 (335 days ago) @ David Turell

*


... "Through theoretical analysis and simulation, the researchers investigated how new mating types can evolve in a non-self recognition system. They found that there are different pathways by which new types can evolve. In some cases this happens through an intermediate stage of being able to self-fertilize; but in other cases it happens by staying self-incompatible. They also found that new mating types only evolved when the cost of self-fertilization (through inbreeding) was high. Being incomplete – i.e., having missing F-box genes that produce antidotes to female toxins — was found to be important for the evolution of new mating types: complete mating types (with a full set of F-Box genes) stayed around for the longest time, as they have the highest number of mating partners. New mating types evolved more readily when there was [sic] less mating types in the population. Also, the demographics in a population affect the evolution of non-self recognition systems: population size and mutation rates all influence how this system evolves.

I love this. It says they tried to figure it out, sat down, did some brain storming on the subject:
Scientist One Talking to a Reporter: "Ah! We [sic] got a few good ideas."
Scientist Two, Talking from off screen: "Pssst, but they don't work in the real world."
Reporter: What?
Scientist One: Well, it's complicated, you know? Trust us, evolution can do it.
Scientist Two: No it can't.
Reporter: What?
Scientist (To other scientist..covering camera and mic): Someone get this idiot out of here before we lose all our funding. And blacklist them from academic positions and journals.
Scientist Two: NO! Wai....
Reporter: What?
Scientist One: Well, you see, we believe these flowers survived by breeding with themselves, and then one day saying 'Well, that's enough of that rot, I want plant sex'. And of course all the other flowers thought that was a jolly good idea and went ahead and changed their genes to accommodate.
Reporter: What?
Scientist One: Exactly. Now, do run along, can't have you asking any real questions.

"The analytical model worked in the committee, but does it work in the real world? In a model, you can assume that beneficial mutations will arise on cue. Nature, however, doesn’t work that way. Their model didn’t compare very well with real flowers:

"So although it seems like having a full team of F-box pollen genes (and therefore antidotes) is the best way for new mating types to evolve, this system is complex and can change via a number of different pathways. Interestingly, while the researchers found that new mating types could evolve, the diversity of genes in their theoretical simulations were fewer compared to what is seen in nature. For Melinda Pickup, this observation is intriguing: “We have provided some understanding of the system, but there are still many more questions and the mystery of the high diversity in nature still exists.'”

Comment: Obviously Darwinists have no idea how the diversity mechanism happened.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum