The Neutral Theory of Evolution

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@glipsnort

I think the neutral theory is almost completely orthogonal to structuralist claims.

I totally agree. They are talking about different things.

[Ashwin_s]

So what does it explain… other than the claim that most of the genome is Junk?

Would the neutral theory be in trouble if a larger part of the genome turned out to have a function?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Ashwin_s

So what does it explain… other than the claim that most of the genome is Junk?

It does not claim the genome is junk. It explains most the large patterns we see in DNA.

[Ashwin_s]

@swamidass

It does not claim the genome is junk. It explains most the large patterns we see in DNA.

Ok… if these large patterns have function, and involve intricate interactions… does neutral theory have any mechanism to explain such a phenomenon?
If natural selection isn’t as important as supposed, then is it possible to get function without some mechanism to guide it?

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Ashwin_s

If natural selection isn’t as important as supposed, then is it possible to get function without some mechanism to guide it?

@Ashwin_s

You are asking Christians to PROVE or EXPLAIN that neutral mutations don’t need God?

Your process of analysis is becoming increasingly annoying.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Ashwin_s

So what does it explain…

It explains why so much genetic variation accumulates within populations and why so many genetic differences occur between species. One of its consequences is that one should not by default assume that either genetic or phenotypic change is either adaptive or selected for. It says nothing at all about change that is adaptive.

@swamidass

other than the claim that most of the genome is Junk?

The fact that most of the genome is junk in some species is one explanation for the applicability of the neutral theory to that species; it is not explained by the neutral theory.

@Ashwin_s

Would the neutral theory be in trouble if a larger part of the genome turned out to have a function?

The neutral theory is less likely to be applicable for species with highly constrained genomes. In viruses, which have highly compact genomes and large population sizes, a much larger proportion of mutations are functional (usually deleterious) than in animals, for example.

[EvolvableCreationist (Joseph Akins)]

@Ashwin_s, @glipsnort
How is structuralist being used here? Structures in the genome? Cell? Or, in the sense that Francois Jacob and his idea of “Evolution as tinkering” was greatly influenced by Claude Levi-Strauss and structural anthropology?

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@EvolvableCreationist

How is structuralist being used here? Structures in the genome? Cell? Or, in the sense that Francois Jacob and his idea of “Evolution as tinkering” was greatly influenced by Claude Levi-Strauss and structural anthropology?

The Wikipedia article on structuralism in biology gives a reasonable short summary of what’s usually meant by the term, or rather, of the range of meanings. There seems to be some overlap between Jacob’s emphasis on the constraints imposed by the evolutionary history of an organism.