Article <v1m2e9$1ilie$1@dont-email.me>

Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <v1m2e9$1ilie$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano

<v1m2e9$1ilie$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: West Virginia creationism
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 23:09:28 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <v1m2e9$1ilie$1@dont-email.me>
References: <9OZNN.758376$p%Mb.330094@fx15.iad>
 <f43i0jh8u89nlndn5137sfa0uo7b0isoik@4ax.com>
 <8a_ON.491226$yEgf.384550@fx09.iad>
 <gdop0jt4mvqljioufv7stmefniid401svh@4ax.com>
 <CvnRN.140988$6ePe.119511@fx42.iad>
 <rcpd1jtljvngh3g3s7455lun0ukjlrqoeb@4ax.com>
 <2VYRN.256204$hN14.193303@fx17.iad>
 <4fch1jpp5qtolug4bj158sl9tvn8h7htp9@4ax.com>
 <ZudSN.257840$hN14.25285@fx17.iad>
 <musi1jhm09745v4es6ca1pbc4nmogs42ck@4ax.com>
 <pfij1j5g77h3mkdcdud73houn3q4fodk9j@4ax.com> <uve46e$31q3m$1@dont-email.me>
 <jhfl1jl6t03emi43t8pv3set2hviiqtele@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="56480"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.14.0
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:55Vc6MLo9+yia76jxzp4T9OSKCI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <jhfl1jl6t03emi43t8pv3set2hviiqtele@4ax.com>
Bytes: 5364

On 13/04/2024 19:26, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:17:50 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me>:
> 
>> On 13/04/2024 01:58, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:04:15 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock
>>> <maycock@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron Dean
>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are
>>>>> observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather
>>>>> there is a loss of information.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8
>>>>>
>>>>> Bad mutations seems to be the rule.
>>>>
>>>> *Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to
>>>> show that *all*  mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial
>>>> mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection,
>>>> resulting in better-functioning organisms.
>>>>
>>> As I understand it, most mutations are neutral; the
>>> beneficial and harmful ones are (approximately) equal in
>>> number, and are far outnumbered by the neutral ones. But
>>> don't expect your correspondent to accept any of that.
>>
>>
>> I understand the same thing on most mutations being neutral but do you
>> have a cite on beneficial and harmful ones being approximately equal in
>> number? From first principles you'd expect that once a system is vaguely
>> optimized (which all life is), changes that are harmful should be more
>> likely than changes that are beneficial.
>>
> No, I don't; sorry. I only (vaguely) recall that being from
> several comments here, some by people (unlike myself)
> qualified by training to make such a statement. As I recall
> it, the comments were to the effect of "About 98% of
> mutations are neutral, with the balance fairly evenly split
> between beneficial and harmful". Your point is well-taken,
> however, and it's something I never considered. I suppose it
> depends on just how optimized the system is *in a particular
> environment*, and how the environment is changing, since I'd
> guess few mutations are inherently either beneficial or
> harmful.

A propos of nothing I just ran into this paper which seems to speak to 
the question:

https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/168/4/1817/6059315

I think it confirms the idea that beneficial mutations are less frequent 
than deleterious ones; the thrust of the paper is that beneficial 
mutations are more frequent than usually thought but that still works 
out to under 10% for most of the numbers it actually gives. There is one 
exception which I wonder might be the source of the commenters you 
remembered, where apparently one paper found the half-and-half 
distribution you describe in a mutation-accumulation experiment in 
Arabidopsis Thaliana.

snip