Evolution: most silent genetic mutations are harmful: (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, June 09, 2022, 17:57 (687 days ago) @ David Turell

Harmful mutations

DAVID: dhw and I long ago threw out chance mutations as causes of evolution. That leaves us with not knowing how speciation occurs. I rely on God. dhw has his own various theories.

dhw: I’ve only reproduced this because it marks one of the rare subjects on which we agree!

This issue creates another problem for neo-Darwinism. It attacks neutral theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution

"The neutral theory assumes that most mutations that are not deleterious are neutral rather than beneficial. Because only a fraction of gametes are sampled in each generation of a species, the neutral theory suggests that a mutant allele can arise within a population and reach fixation by chance, rather than by selective advantage."

Here is ID commentary:

https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-death-of-neutral-theory/

"1 through 5 are citations. Who are they: Kimura, King and Jukes, Nei and Kumar, Li and Dan Graur. The heavyweights of neutral theory.

The abstract ends:

"The strong non-neutrality of most synonymous mutations, if it holds true for other genes and in other organisms, would require re-examination of numerous biological conclusions about mutation, selection, effective population size, divergence time and disease mechanisms that rely on the assumption that synonymous mutations are neutral. (my bold)

"In the Phys.Org press release, one of the authors is quoted saying:

“'Since the genetic code was solved in the 1960s, synonymous mutations have been generally thought to be benign. We now show that this belief is false,” said study senior author Jianzhi “George” Zhang, the Marshall W. Nirenberg Collegiate Professor in the U-M Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

“'Because many biological conclusions rely on the presumption that synonymous mutations are neutral, its invalidation has broad implications. For example, synonymous mutations are generally ignored in the study of disease-causing mutations, but they might be an underappreciated and common mechanism.”

***

"I have often made fun of those who hold to the Neutral Theory in the non–Kimuran sense. My problem with the idea of everything being ‘neutral’ was that, hypothetically, anything can become anything. There’s no start nor finish to this process. I thought it was extravagant; instead, it was just wrong. Modern techniques–the use of Crisper to make mutant genes, has now allowed us to see how NT is a ‘dead-end.’ We can only hope that evolutionary biologists can see this. But there’s really no reason for such hope, is there?"

Comment: I presented the article yesterday and did not note this viewpoint, as I am not as sharp as the ID folks, and I constantly learn viewpoints from them. I accept new peer-reviewed articles as accepted new knowledge as ID does. In the Ediacaran new time gap finding with Cambrain, dhw fights it with old quotes. Peer reeview means science has accepted the new finding. We have to use it!! dhw is hoping future research will overturn it to salvage his rigid theories about evolution.