The "Third Way"/EES and Population Genetics

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mark

Glad to have seen some answers in this thread. My general feeling is that the fact that population genetics is even POSSIBLE actually points to ORDER in the evolutionary process.

It is not just possible, it is a fact. There is a hidden order in just about everything, and population genetics (specifically neutral theory) uncovers that order in random mutations. That is how science works. It seeks to find those stable patterns that emerge. The patterns we are making use of are very stable. That is why even EES supporters are going to support the conclusions I made…

@sygarte

Help @mark out here. I think you are in agreement that it does not reduce confidence in the TMR4A work.

Of course it doesn’t. Other than possibly Shapiro nobody questions the conclusions of population genetics, and certainly not when the subject is the genetic, mutational or genealogical history of humanity.

As you will see much of the debate betwee the “modern synthesis and EES” is just insider baseball, case in point:

@jongarvey

Laland and Noble (and others, including Margulis) also have in common a stress on rejection of the gene-centric view that Dawkins made a cornerstone of evolutionary theory, and since population genetics is (by definition) the mathematics of allele frequencies and mutation rates, the anti-gene centric view must to some degree appear to side step population genetics.
…

So it does raise the question of the current uncertainty about what exactly a “gene” is, or whether the term has any true reference to reality beyond what the luminiferous aether had. If not, then genetics is going to look a slightly orphaned science as time goes by.

Of course Dawkins is wrong in a gene-centric view. The problem I have with Laland and Nobel (not Margulis) is that they claim this is somehow surprised by other scientists, these mythical “Darwinists” that do not even exist any more. Appealing to Dawkin’s representation of the science is akin to complaining about Bill Nye. These guys are not the leaders of the field (or even in the field in the case of Nye). Their claims are already part of the modern synthesis, and in the case of Margulis, widely celebrated and cited.

Regardless, @Mark, what just about everyone informed will agree is that this does not reduce confidence in the population genetics I’ve made use of here.

Which gets to one error you make:

@Mark

The fact that mutations (beneficial or not) occur at a more or less consistent rate (even taking into account stress induced mutation rates) certainly implies that mutations are not ENTIRELY spontaneous.

This gets back to a major misconception, similar to one I’ve heard from @johnnyb.

The mutations do appear to be ENTIRELY spontaneous. The fact they take place in a largely constant rate does not make them less random. That just tells us there is a pattern to their randomness. Remember, random does not imply “without pattern.” Just because there is pattern to random mutations does not mean they are magically not random. It just means they are “random with said pattern.”

This is not a matter of opinion, but one of definitions. Nothing in the definition of “random” precludes that mutations follow patterns. In fact, the statistically definition of “random” itself assumes that mutations follow some patterns.

I think you have a false conflict in your mind between RANDOM and ORDER. That needs to be stamped out if you want to make sense of this.