Correcting a Quote Mine on Deleterious Mutations

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@thoughtful

@Rumraket

In total, more mutations are neutral and deleterious than are beneficial.

@Rumraket

That last sentence is the key point of contention that really matters to whether GE is true or not, and there is no evidence that it is true. Every word in the sentence matters. I’ll repeat it:

What is not supported by any research is that the distribution is skewered and fixed such that deleterious mutations of very small effect will accumulate indefinitely

Help me understand why what you’re saying is not contradictory with what @CrisprCAS9 says.

The key to your question is the first sentence of mine you quote.
It begins with “in total [more mutations are neutral and deleterious] [than are beneficial].”

I am not making a claim about the relative proportions or magnitudes of the [neutral and deleterious] ones, merely that they [in total] outnumber beneficials.
Just hypothetically, they might outnumber beneficials 80d+n:20b, or 90d+n:10n or even further, depending on how far into high levels of fitness the population already is.
But then the [neutral+deleterious] fraction might itself be split [70d:30n], or [50d:50n], or [30d:70n] or w/e.
I fully acknowledge that I don’t know the distribution within the neutral fraction, but even if it really is somehow close to how Sanford imagines, I’ve already given very good arguments (supported by real empirical evidence) for why his conclusion of inevitable and indefinite fitness decline physically cannot occur.

@thoughtful

@Rumraket

That’s what the tried to do with the H1N1 paper, but failed at doing. @dsterncardinale has this nice video that explains why:

I’ll try to watch it later, but it was already obvious from the thread he didn’t understand their argument

Uhm, no, just no. Just flat out false. Watch it.

@thoughtful

@Rumraket

There’s that word “undisputed”. If someone, anyone, disputes it, that gives you some excuse to dispute it too? Can that someone be wrong?

It’s mildly amusing that we’re talking about an increase in fitness for 1 mutant out of 1000s and you see the need to argue that it matters whether it’s disputed or not. To me, this makes scientists look unscientific.

It makes scientists look unscientific that they really care about being precise and correct in their characterizations of real data? Then perhaps what you find mildly amusing is itself an argument that you’re not being all that reasonable.

Hey, I see you also skipped right over me asking:

@Rumraket

@thoughtful

Yes, but also this:

Bacteria have an amazing growth rate.

Hey @thoughtful, please explain to me how growth rate, that is the number of new individuals produced by unit time, makes a difference to how many deleterious mutations there should be, or whether they are visible to selection. Pro tip: It does not.

@thoughtful

Is there any research to show the extent to which it is relaxed? Or what would be expected if it was not?

I invite you again to consider taking a look at both extant and historical comparisons in measures of mortality rates for human beings, between industrialized and non-industrialized nations, and pre-industrialized and current time periods. For example, take a look at table 2 in this paper:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513812001237

Compare those historical values to the modern rate at the bottom. From about a quarter to roughly half of all children died before they reached adulthood. That’s an enormous selective pressure.

Yes, there is a vast literature on this, and among it are also publications that put these numbers into an evolutionary context. Population geneticists such as Michael Lynch have pointed these things out:
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961