The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.
– Eugene Koonin (2009)
Does this make Eugene Koonin an evolution skeptic?
The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution. So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone.
I’m still struggling to incorporate Alan Fox’s allegation that I am an evolution skeptic. I still don’t really know what it means to be an evolution skeptic. Eugene Koonin rather obviously rejects the view of evolution held by Alan Fox. Is Eugene Koonin an evolution skeptic?
Or is this just another example of Creationist quote mining. Maybe it’s both.
What say you, “skeptics”?
The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?
John Harshman,
Not ignoring, still looking at it. Also your point of the probability of a catastrophic mutation is valid I have been looking at this but don’t know yet.
Your position does not provide evidence for tiny pixies
Without them, bumblebees could not fly.
Bumblebees do fly.
Therefore, pixies.
or, you could take the keiths approach and claim that is the absence of pixies that explain why bumblebees fly.
I don’t think I ever could take keiths approach but we are still waiting for those testable explanations and predictions borne from evolution that a bumblebee can fly.
Of interest, the mutation rate in the germ line is significantly lower that that in the soma. This makes sense. There is less need to control for mutation in a somatic lineage that is only going on for a few dozen more replication events, cancer notwithstanding.
I don’t know how this is implemented, mechanistically. But the rates observed – observed – are nowhere near those calculated as necessary by counting every single replication event.
colewd,
I have looked through your paper and others and have 2 comments.
1. The paper you cited was for single cell organisms
2. The measurement accuracy at this point maybe an issue
All that being said I agree this is a good point.
At this point I have found 9 proteins that if a premature stop cordon was initiated run away cell growth could happen. These include the 5 proteins in the beta canteen distraction mechanism. DKK protein which triggers the destruction mechanism. The target protein of DKK and e cadherin protein that is mission critical in cell adhesion. If we say there is one in 3 chance of this happening if one of these targets are hit (one of three T substitutions) and 3 billion nucleotides the odds are one and one billion of having this event.
Overall accuracy of 10^9 or even 10^14 appear to be problematic because the latter would trigger 55 billion opportunities to find one of these mutations.
Bill, the lowest ever observed mutation rate in any organism is orders of magnitude higher than your “required” mutation rate. That means your “required” mutation rate doesn’t happen in any known life form. What does that tell you? Could you be wrong about your mutation rate being “required”?
I like “stop cordon”, but it isn’t as good as “delirious mutation”. The one you used in email, “single early stop condom mutations” is the best yet. Is this autocorrect, or is it all you?
Whoa, I hadn’t even noticed “beta canteen”.
Cells have a distraction mechanism? I’m guessing autocorrect, since all the individual words are spelled correctly, they’re just wrong 😀
Rumraket,
Of course, but the lower levels of accuracy don’t make sense or we would see lots of problems at birth. A possibility is that the immune system is able to take out these events and eliminate the catastrophic cells.
Congratulations. That’s the first sensible thing you have said. Instead of doubting that observed mutation rates are real, you suggest a way for certain rare mutations to be removed from the cell population. That hypothesis has the virtue of not being directly contradicted by data. There may even be evidence for it.
John Harshman,
I was going to strenuously advise against taking anything from a beta canteen.
Bill – imagine a somatic lineage allowed to replicate unrestrained for 20 generations. In which generation are ‘catastrophic’ mutations most likely to occur?
It is a fact of our kind of life that, the longer a lineage persists, the more likely it is to become cancerous, somewhere. This is not a major problem*** if that threshold is closer to the end than the beginning of the soma’s life.
*** It is a problem to the deceased, of course. But not to evolution.
A 10 hour version of the The Star Wars cantina song seems strangely appropriate for this discussion.
Another curious fact to consider: A large proportion of pregnancies are naturally terminated (result in a miscarriage) by the body because something is detected as going wrong. It often takes multiple attempts for many many people to give birth to a healthy baby.