Monday, July 26, 2004

Mutation Bias?

Have a look at this short review of the new book Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur. The reviewer is Armond Leroi, a British biologist.

I mention this book for two reasons. The first is that Leroi praises the book as a good, clear introduction to the subject of evo-devo, one comprehensible to non-biologists. Personally, I've been looking for such an introduction for a while now, and I will probably pick up a copy of this book eventually.

The other reason is that Arthur apparently discusses the idea of orthogenesis. This refers to the possibility that evolution is effectively channeled into certain directions via design and developmental constraints. If this is true, then the trajectories traced out by evolving populations are not as random as is commonly thought. Such a discovery could also provide a compelling explanation for evolutionary convergence.

Orthogenesis has been very unpopular among scientists since no one has proposed a plausible mechanism by which it happens. Arthur seeks to change that. Here's Leroi summarizing Arthur's argument:


These are brave words. Orthogenesis has been a cause without mainstream sympathizers for at least 60 years. The reason for this is that no one has provided a mechanism by which it might work. Most biologists believe that the evolutionary direction of lineages is largely determined by natural selection; a minority make great play of contingency (the non-selective effects of meteor strikes and the like). So what is going on? Has Arthur discovered a new principle of evolution?

Not really, no. The fuel in his orthogenetic engine is 'mutation bias'. Mutation produces novel phenotypes, but it does not produce all novel phenotypes in equal frequency in a given population. For example, mutations that cause an animal to become smaller than normal might be more common than those that cause it to become larger. This bias is the result of the way body size is specified in development — a bias that might influence the direction that evolution takes, causing small animals to evolve more often than large ones.


And later:


Mutation bias is not enough to produce orthogenesis, however. If there is a single fitness optimum, or if the population is sufficiently large to ensure that all possible mutations are always present, then the direction of evolution will be dictated by natural selection alone. But if the landscape is rugged and population sizes small, the particular peak climbed by a population could depend on what mutations happen to be available. This is not orthogenesis of old — which posited a force independent of, or even capable of opposing, natural selection — but a reassignment of influence over evolutionary trajectories from natural selection to the kind of genetic variation available for it to work on.

If 'mutation bias' turns out to be a new term for an old idea, the same seems to be true for another unusual term: 'internal selection'. This is the idea that as one part of an organism evolves, it exerts selective pressure on other parts to change as well. Suppose a mutation increasing the length of an animal becomes fixed in a population. This might cause the subsequent fixation of another mutation that increases the animal's width, so restoring an original, harmonious, proportion. Arthur makes great play of this, but I think the interaction at the heart of this process is well known to population geneticists as 'fitness epistasis' and has often been experimentally demonstrated.


Leroi's conclusion is that Arthur's ideas are interesting, but far from proved.

I mention this here because, if Arthur is correct and mutation bias does lead to certain evolutionary pathways being favored over others, then this throws yet another monkey wrench into William Dembski's scheme for inferring design in organisms. Remember, Dembski's key ideas are that if an object is highly improbable and conforms to some independently describable pattern, then we can conclude it was designed. As has been documented elsewhere, his whole system is shot through with holes. But one of the biggest is his claim that we can carry out meaningful probability calculations regarding the formation of complex, biological structures.

Arthur's ideas would have to be taken into consideration in any such calculation. If certain sorts of phenotypes are more likely to be found in a population than others, than this will effect our measurement of how likely it is to evolve a particular complex system. And unless we can quantify very precisely which sorts of mutations are more likely to be found than others, it will be effectively impossible to carry out any such computation.

The evolution of complex systems dempends on far more variables than can possibly be captured in any elementary probability calculation. Arthur's ideas, if correct, would make that problem even more acute.

16 Comments:

At 5:14 PM, Blogger Arlin Stoltzfus said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 5:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a topic where synthesis is badly needed. First, theoretically, there is not any doubt that mutation bias can, under some circumstances, cause evolution to favor one direction over another. The population-genetic mechanism is shown in the theoretical paper that Leroi cites in his review (Yampolsky, L.Y., and Stoltzfus, A. 2001. Bias in the introduction of variation as an orienting factor in evolution. Evol Dev 3: 73-83).

Second, there is no doubt that mutation-biased evolution is common. Every molecular evolutionist knows that mutation biases like GC/AT bias or transition/transversion bias or CpG bias have a major influence on molecular evolution. This influence is not an effect of "constraint" preventing some kinds of mutations from occurring: transversion mutations do occur, they just occur at a lower rate.

Third, one should not think of this as a special property of neutral evolution. It is true that in most cases one could dismiss mutation-biased sequence evolution as an aspect of neutral evolution, since (whether or not its true) it is hard to exclude neutral evolution for the majority of changes. However, neutral evolution is not theoretically necessary for mutation-biased evolution (see Yampolsky & Stoltzfus). There are even cases in which experimental adaptive evolution is influenced by mutation bias (see Rokyta, et al. 2005. An empirical test of the mutational landscape model of adaptation using a single-stranded DNA virus. Nat Genet 37: 441-444).

Finally, there is no obvious reason that developmental biases on phenotypic variation could not have a similar effect as mutational biases (see Yampolsky & Stoltzfus).

Arlin

 
At 12:31 AM, Anonymous zenegra said...

penis enlargement pill
buy viagra
viagra
Tadalafil
Cialis
Buy Viagra
tadalafil
Zenegra
Stop4rx
tadalafil

Zenegra

ZENEGRA

Zenegra

zenegra
mp3 players
buy mp3 players
cheap mp3 players
wholesale mp3 players
portable mp3 players

Zenegra

ZENEGRA
purchase viagra
viagra
buy Cialis
Cialis
buy Cialis
Cialis

 
At 8:29 PM, Blogger Adi said...

Oes Tsetnoc one of the ways in which we can learn seo besides Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa. By participating in the Oes Tsetnoc or Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa we can improve our seo skills. To find more information about Oest Tsetnoc please visit my Oes Tsetnoc pages. And to find more information about Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa please visit my Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa pages. Thank you So much.

 
At 4:44 PM, Anonymous retirement homes in costa rica said...

thanks for all!!
retirement homes in costa rica

 
At 12:06 PM, Anonymous Buy Propecia said...

this research can give us numberless result and answers, mutation is the base of evolution, without little mutations the changes that make possible the evolution are almost invisible.

 
At 2:24 AM, Anonymous louis vuitton zipped purse said...

Your blog site is excellent. Say thanks to you truly for providing plenty of both useful and interesting advise. I will bookmark bookmark your website and will be absolutely coming back. Again, I truly appreciate all your work furthermore providing plenty of worthwhile info for the audience.
louis vuitton papillon | louis vuitton tresor wallet | louis vuitton musette | louis vuitton theda gm


wow all those garments are so amazing and fabulous louis vuitton small ring agenda refill don't come to your blog as often as baseball cap would like, but whenever louis vuitton speedy do louis vuitton keepall see some really amazing things keep up the good work! =)

 
At 6:25 AM, Anonymous Money Talks News said...

Such a wonderful post. Thanks for the share. Keep posting. I follow you.
Money Talks|

 
At 7:47 AM, Blogger Bac Pham said...

Great post! I will bookmark bookmark your website and will be absolutely coming back. Real Estate in Vietnam

 
At 3:51 PM, Anonymous kamagra said...

Yeah I hear that a guy in germany is in a trail for because he made experiments in alive babies that he bough to some dealers.

 
At 10:40 AM, Anonymous www.teresaestevez.com said...

I consider everyone must read this.

 
At 7:34 PM, Anonymous Kansas City cheap hotels said...

COOL! Oh wow, this got every one going - fascinating input mixed with a good read. Thanks for sharing the such information with us.

 
At 12:25 PM, Anonymous call forwarding said...

I really admire this, I mean it really looks interesting! Very nice write up. Anyways, its a Great post

 
At 6:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice info given, may be cara memperbesar penis a blessing and benefit us all

 
At 9:46 PM, Blogger Caroline said...

all of which have been presented by this website was perfect, good appearance and artikelnya..penuh color and full of children's bedrooms | honda cbr meaning ..

 
At 9:53 PM, Blogger carneado said...

Helpful once ya news,
thanks a lot ya design for home pa admin has specifications price honda cbr given this bedroom design ideas good news.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home