home bbs files messages ]

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