Originally posted by lee_merrill
View Post
Oh yes, an entire thread where you unsuccessfully defended the idea that evolution primarily selects for mutations that eliminate function.
Which of the two ways you've argued would you like to adopt for this thread?
(For those who aren't Lee, selection is context dependent, and can select for function, non-function, changed function, etc. Axe's work is specifically looking at function without any selection, and so is completely irrelevant to it.)
Originally posted by lee_merrill
View Post
Again, i'd like to point out that you don't know enough biology to actually recognize the difference. And so i'll ask again - why do you refuse to accept the extensive evidence you have a poor understanding of biology?
Originally posted by lee_merrill
View Post
Where he (and you) go wrong is to conclude that that sparseness means that there are no viable evolutionary paths between different functions. In fact, a large number of mutations are compatible with maintaining structure, while being neutral or altering function. If i remember correctly, Axe had to start making multiple adjacent mutations because when he tried a small number of mutations, they were typically tolerated with no difficulty.
It's this category of mutation—maintain structure, potentially alter function—that provides pathways to new functions without disrupting the structure.
Now, if all that were happening were random mutations - which remember, typically happen one at a time, and so are completely unlike what Axe is doing here - you'd rarely end up on on one of these viable pathways. But the whole point of evolution is that selection occurs, and can eliminate any mutations that aren't on a viable pathway.
In other words, Axe's work actually demonstrates why evolution is so incredibly powerful. He just seems incapable of realizing it.
Originally posted by lee_merrill
View Post
Comment