The importance of neutral null for understanding evolution
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The importance of neutral null for understanding evolution
1–10 of 34 posts
Re: The importance of neutral null for understanding evolution
#2Evolutionary theory is uncannily similar to the Hebrew tetragrammaton, which is often translated into English as "I am that I am". But digging in, you will find that it is the verb "to be" in both perfect (now) and imperfect (past/future) tenses.
It means something like "That which is now in a way consistent with that which has been and will be". To me, that's evolution.
This is a reconciliation of philosophy and spirituality that I have found deep joy and peace in. I was raised Christian, and while I was never pressured to be creationist, neo-Darwinism left such a bad taste in my mouth that at a young, naive age, I embraced creationism as a way to rationalize things that my heart knew to be true.
But by the end of high school, I had come to terms with the beauty and depth of evolutionary theory. Thanks to more ecological versions of evolutionary theory, such as symbiogenesis, evolutionary understanding has since then become a cornerstone of my spirituality.
As an artist and musician, I also appreciate the 'creativity' embedded in the process of evolution. Evolution says "give it a try". If it doesn't work, it tries something new. Once in a while, something sticks; it survives its own context some way or another. Other forms die out, like snapshots of some greater metamorphosis. We are lucky to witness them!
Re: The importance of neutral null for understanding evolution
#3Evolutionary theory is uncannily similar to the Hebrew tetragrammaton, which is often translated into English as "I am that I am". But digging in, you will find that it is the verb "to be" in both perfect (now) and imperfect (past/future) tenses. It means something like "That which is now in a way consistent with that which has been and will be". To me, that's evolution. This is a reconciliation of philosophy and spi…
If you have not read it, you might be interested in John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis 1
Re: The importance of neutral null for understanding evolution
#4Evolutionary theory is uncannily similar to the Hebrew tetragrammaton, which is often translated into English as "I am that I am". But digging in, you will find that it is the verb "to be" in both perfect (now) and imperfect (past/future) tenses. It means something like "That which is now in a way consistent with that which has been and will be". To me, that's evolution. This is a reconciliation of philosophy and spi…
It sounds like you are reading to deeply into things that have simpler explanations. Which is the point of the article, sometimes there is no real explanation other than it just happened that way. Sort of like how driving on the left or right side of the road started as a competently arbitrary choice, but now the rules are generally fixed in a given area.
However, I might not be getting your point.
Re: The importance of neutral null for understanding evolution
#5"And the proper null hypothesis posits that it is a result of neutral evolution: that is, it survives by sheer chance provided that it is not deleterious enough to be efficiently purged by purifying selection."
This is news?
And I claim precedence on the phrase "just so story" for those things biologists have been spouting for decades.
Re: The importance of neutral null for understanding evolution
#6Evolutionary theory is uncannily similar to the Hebrew tetragrammaton, which is often translated into English as "I am that I am". But digging in, you will find that it is the verb "to be" in both perfect (now) and imperfect (past/future) tenses. It means something like "That which is now in a way consistent with that which has been and will be". To me, that's evolution. This is a reconciliation of philosophy and spi…
It sounds like you are reading to deeply into things that have simpler explanations. Which is the point of the article, sometimes there is no real explanation other than it just happened that way. Sort of like how driving on the left or right side of the road started as a competently arbitrary choice, but now the rules are generally fixed in a given area. However, I might not be getting your point.
"Reading too deeply into things that have simpler explanations" is a hallmark of Kabbalah, which it sounds like the op has read into. Also, acid trips.
Re: The importance of neutral null for understanding evolution
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you are reading to deeply into things that have simpler explanations. Which is the point of the article, sometimes there is no real explanation other than it just happened that way. Sort of like how driving on the left or right side of the road started as a competently arbitrary choice, but now the rules are generally fixed in a given area. However, I might not be getting your point.
"Reading too deeply into things that have simpler explanations" is a hallmark of Kabbalah, which it sounds like the op has read into. Also, acid trips.
I haven't studied Kabbalah, nor have I tripped on acid. I studied folk Christian mysticism, as passed to me from my grandfather (oral tradition). I also used the internet and other resources to dig into the language and history.
Re: The importance of neutral null for understanding evolution
#8Evolutionary theory is uncannily similar to the Hebrew tetragrammaton, which is often translated into English as "I am that I am". But digging in, you will find that it is the verb "to be" in both perfect (now) and imperfect (past/future) tenses. It means something like "That which is now in a way consistent with that which has been and will be". To me, that's evolution. This is a reconciliation of philosophy and spi…
there is no purpose in biology, there just is
Re: The importance of neutral null for understanding evolution
#9Evolutionary theory is uncannily similar to the Hebrew tetragrammaton, which is often translated into English as "I am that I am". But digging in, you will find that it is the verb "to be" in both perfect (now) and imperfect (past/future) tenses. It means something like "That which is now in a way consistent with that which has been and will be". To me, that's evolution. This is a reconciliation of philosophy and spi…
It sounds like you are reading to deeply into things that have simpler explanations. Which is the point of the article, sometimes there is no real explanation other than it just happened that way. Sort of like how driving on the left or right side of the road started as a competently arbitrary choice, but now the rules are generally fixed in a given area. However, I might not be getting your point.
Okay, I've definitely been "guilty" of reading deeply into things that have simple explanations. That's cause I'm curious and I love trying to understand things! Whether or not I've dug "too deep" is feeling pretty close to a value judgement of something that's totally relative to one's point of view. So I'll leave that alone.
> However, I might not be getting your point.
If you weren't, it wasn't your fault, it's more because I was being a little too tacit.
The reason for my comment was to point out a remarkable similarity between two spiritual/philosophical frameworks that have been painted as diametrically opposed, and whose adherents are often cast as irreconcilable enemies. I grew up with both of these influences each in their own strong ways, and struggled to integrate them within myself. I'm grateful that I've been able to at all. Some people end up feeling spit out and bitter.
My point is that the Hebrew word for god is essentially "I am cause I can be". Which is pretty close to "it is what it is". It's a very existential kind of character, but pretty simple. It's kinda like that question recently posted on hacker news, why does anything exist? The answer here being "because it can, that's why".
I'm not advocating that you or anyone adopt my spiritual worldview, just sharing my perspective. Actually, my journey has been to let go of the baggage of institutionalized Christianity. But I've chosen not to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'. I still believe that traditional myths and stories, including my own, are beautiful and interesting.
As far as the article goes, I actually take issue with the presented dichotomy between "function" and "no function", because to me, every DNA sequence/expression, or lack-thereof, has some implication, however nuanced. Whether or not that implication counts as "functional" or not is often beyond the capabilities of our time machines and is philosophically up for discussion. As far as evolution is concerned, and here's where I agree with the article, whether or not something counts as "functional" is beside the point. The point is that if something survived, it did so because nothing was stopping it. Or as you say because "it just happened that way", kinda like those "extra" notes in a jazz solo.
Re: The importance of neutral null for understanding evolution
#10" And the proper null hypothesis posits that it is a result of neutral evolution: that is, it survives by sheer chance provided that it is not deleterious enough to be efficiently purged by purifying selection. " This is news? And I claim precedence on the phrase "just so story" for those things biologists have been spouting for decades.
Yes, but it is a nuance in a specialized field, so it might seem "obvious" to outsiders.
The article does give the background here - there are multiple positions within evolutionary biology. All accept natural selection, of course, but the fine details matter too. In particular here the question is a decades long debate that Gould&Lewontin headed, saying that not all apparently-useful adaptations evolved, some are "spandrels" that arose for other reasons.
The article mentions other reasons to suspect that things that seem useful did not evolve, such as the surprising effect of drift in multicellular organisms (us) vs single-celled organisms. In the latter, selection affects each nucleotide of DNA. In the former, selection must be powerful enough to overcome noise, otherwise it is ineffective - which seems surprising, as this is averaged over many individuals over much time. The surprising thing is that this effect is, it turns out, non-linear.