Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    talk.origins    |    Evolution versus creationism (sometimes    |    142,579 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 141,966 of 142,579    |
|    RonO to MarkE    |
|    Re: AI as an alternative to TO (1/2)    |
|    15 Dec 25 10:11:40    |
      From: rokimoto557@gmail.com              On 12/15/2025 6:09 AM, MarkE wrote:       > An interesting conversation with ChatGPT 5.2:       >       > Q1. With biological evolution of say mammals there are multiple traits       > (there must be thousands) that are simultaneously being optimised or       > conserved. How does does this work with purifying, selection, population       > genetics, fixation etc?       >       > https://chatgpt.com/s/t_693ffa4b47c881919ebcff6447a49748       >       > A. This question goes to the core of modern evolutionary genetics and is       > exactly where naïve “single-trait” intuitions break down. The short       > answer is: evolution does not optimise traits one-by-one. Instead,       > selection operates on whole organisms whose genomes encode thousands of       > partially coupled traits, and population genetics provides the machinery       > for how this can work without contradiction.       >       > I will structure the answer from first principles, then address the       > apparent paradox of “thousands of traits at once”.       >       > 1. What selection actually “sees”       >       > Natural selection does not see traits independently. It acts on:       >       > Whole organisms       >       > Whose phenotypes are emergent outcomes of       >       > Genotypes interacting with environments       >       > Formally, selection acts on differences in reproductive success       > (fitness). Traits matter only insofar as they contribute (positively,       > negatively, or neutrally) to that success.       >       > So the unit of selection is not:       >       > “eye sharpness”, “bone density”, “enzyme X efficiency”       >       > but rather:       >       > organism A leaves more descendants than organism B in environment E.       >       > 2. Genomes are high-dimensional systems, not collections of knobs       >       > A mammalian genome has:       >       > ~20,000 protein-coding genes       >       > Millions of regulatory elements       >       > Extensive pleiotropy (one gene affects many traits)       >       > Extensive epistasis (gene effects depend on other genes)       >       > This creates a high-dimensional fitness landscape, where:       >       > Each genotype is a point in ~millions of dimensions       >       > Fitness is a scalar value assigned to that point       >       > Selection therefore performs gradient ascent in a very high-dimensional       > space, not independent optimisation of each axis.       >       > Key implication:       >       > Most dimensions are nearly flat most of the time.       >       > 3. Purifying selection dominates most of the genome       >       > Empirically, in mammals:       >       > The majority of mutations are neutral or nearly neutral       >       > A substantial fraction are deleterious       >       > Only a tiny fraction are beneficial at any time       >       > This is why purifying (negative) selection is the dominant mode:       >       > Mutations that disrupt conserved functions are removed       >       > Existing functional structures are maintained, not continuously       “improved”       >       > Mathematically:       >       > For a deleterious mutation with selection coefficient       > 𝑠       > <       > 0       > s<0,       >       > Its fixation probability is approximately:       >       > 𝑃       > ≈       > 1       > −       > 𝑒       > 2       > 𝑠       > 1       > −       > 𝑒       > −       > 4       > 𝑁       > 𝑒       > 𝑠       > P≈       > 1−e       > −4N       > e       >        >       > s       > 1−e       > 2s       >        >       >       > which is vanishingly small for moderate       > ∣       > 𝑠       > ∣       > ∣s∣ in large populations.       >       > Thus, thousands of traits are “simultaneously conserved” simply because:       >       > Any mutation that degrades them is efficiently removed.       >       > No active optimisation is required.       >       > 4. Nearly-neutral theory resolves the “too many traits” intuition       >       > Motoo Kimura’s nearly neutral theory is critical here.       >       > Key idea:       >       > Many mutations have effects       > ∣       > 𝑠       > ∣       > ≈       > 1       > 𝑁       > 𝑒       > ∣s∣≈       > N       > e       >        >       > 1       >        >       >       > Their fate is governed largely by genetic drift, not selection       >       > Consequences:       >       > Small-effect mutations can drift through populations       >       > Large-effect deleterious mutations are purged       >       > Large-effect beneficial mutations are rare       >       > This means:       >       > Traits can wander within tolerance bounds       >       > As long as performance stays within a viable envelope, selection is       > indifferent       >       > This dramatically reduces the “coordination problem”.       >       > 5. Fixation does not require global optimisation       >       > A common misunderstanding is thinking fixation requires a trait to be       > “globally optimal”.       >       > In reality:       >       > Fixation only requires local advantage or drift       >       > The population is almost never at a global optimum       >       > Most fixation events involve:       >       > Slight modifiers       >       > Compensatory changes       >       > Context-dependent advantages       >       > Important point:       >       > Fixation is path-dependent and historically contingent.       >       > Evolution “locks in” workable solutions, not best ones.       >       > 6. Trade-offs and constraint: why perfection is impossible       >       > Many traits are antagonistically coupled:       >       > Bone density vs. weight       >       > Immune sensitivity vs. autoimmunity       >       > Metabolic rate vs. longevity       >       > Formally:       >       > Fitness gradients for different traits often point in different directions       >       > The result is movement toward constraint surfaces, not maxima       >       > This leads to:       >       > Pareto fronts, not optima       >              [continued in next message]              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca