= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
dekelron comments on Neuroscience basics for LessWrongians - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (102)
That's interesting. I guess my next question is, how confident are we that this sequence has been undergoing close-to-neutral selection?
I ask because if it has been undergoing close-to-neutral selection, that implies that almost all possible mutations in that region are fitness-neutral. (Which is why my thoughts turned to "something is necessary, but it doesn't matter what". When you call that unlikely, is that because there's no known mechanism for it, or you just don't think there was sufficient evidence for the hypothesis, or something else?) But... according to this study they're not, which leaves me very confused. This doesn't even feel like I just don't know enough, it feels like something I think I know is wrong.
There is no "neutral" evolution, as all DNA sequences are subject to several constraints, such as maintaining GC content and preventing promoters from popping out needlessly. There is also large variability of mutation rates along different DNA regions. Together, this results in high variance of "neutral" mutation rate, and because of huge genome, making it (probably) impossible to detect even regions having quarter of neutral mutation rate. I think this is the case here.
This extends what zslastsman written regarding structure.