Article View: bionet.molbio.evolution
Article #6685molecular clock question
From: Tom Holroyd
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1991 22:36
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1991 22:36
76 lines
4817 bytes
4817 bytes
Hi. I'm doing a report on molecular clocks, and I thought I might find some folks to talk to on the mol-evol list. My background for this is mathematical. I've noticed that there is a lot of controversy over the "rate" of evolution. My mathematical training leads me to suppose that evolution proceeds in a manner that may not even have a well defined "rate", let alone a constant linear rate, as some have supposed. Recent theoretical work in self-organizing systems suggests that organisms live at the boundary of order and chaos. It may sound prosaic, but consider that order is represented by fixed, periodic behavior, never changing - any creature that never changes is not likely to survive long - and chaos is a type of randomness - creatures that are too random, too disorganized, are also unlikely. A more precise formulation exists, but this will do for now. The point being that systems (and organisms) that live on the boundary between order and chaos have just the right amount of flexibility to cope with new situations, and yet also function in an organized, ordered fashion. Mathematically, this region is characterized by "intermittency" - meaning there may be "bursts" of change, followed by periods of relative stability. This is a mathematical basis for the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolutionary change. PE has a good theoretical foundation. Systems that behave this way show power law scaling of the bursts with respect to time. The cute way of saying this is "an order of magnitude more bursts, an order of magnitude less often." This means that the bursts of change happen on all time scales, or, that there is no characteristic time for change in such systems. This would correspond to the "rate" of evolution, if it existed, but these arguments suggest that the rate, or characteristic time, is undefined: a power law scaling would be the more appropriate description. Another avenue of attack is that the genetic structure of an organism is hierarchical. If you start with the assumption that point mutations are equally probably anywhere along the genome (a perhaps not too safe assumption, but it would only help my argument if it was false), then you can examine each point on the genome and ask the question "would a mutation here produce a viable creature?" If the answer is "no", then you can ask "would an additional mutation somewhere else help?" What I'm driving at is that some points are going to need mutations at other points first, if the creature is to survive. In fact, there may be a large cascade of changes necessary before a single mutation can be viable. When this happens, the probabilities for change become linked, and you multiply them, producing distributions of viable mutations with long tails, i.e. power law scaling. The point of all this is that mathematically, I don't expect mutations to occur at a constant, linear rate. I don't even expect there to be a well defined rate, except that the variability of the mean might settle down over a time scale of several hundred million years, making molecular clocks useful on large time scales only. Even then, though, one cannot rule out the possibility that a "burst" may be waiting to happen right around the corner, or just happened a few millenia ago, leading to a large error in the time estimate. Also, over such large time scales, there is a good chance of some event occurring that totally redefines all the probabilities (i.e. it's a non-stationary system). The mathematics of percolation clusters and self-organized criticality is also relevant here. Life exists on the side of a sandpile, if you know what that means. A side note: how likely are totally neutral mutations? Even if a codon mutates to one coding for the same amino acid, the relative concentrations of the appropriate tRNA, or interactions with DNA-binding regulatory proteins could confer a selective advantage. Any comments from the biologists (or the mathematicians)? Tom Holroyd Center for Complex Systems Florida Atlantic University tomh@bambi.ccs.fau.edu P.S. I'd be happy to discuss any of the above mentioned models in detail.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9109052236.AA17124@bambi.ccs.fau.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!fauern!iraun1.ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!BAMBI.CCS.FAU.EDU!tomhShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10a7a9,953bd3b50ce47e57,start X-Google-Attributes: gid10a7a9,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1991-09-05 17:15:50 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!fauern!iraun1.ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!BAMBI.CCS.FAU.EDU!tomh From: tomh@BAMBI.CCS.FAU.EDU (Tom Holroyd) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: molecular clock question Message-ID: <9109052236.AA17124@bambi.ccs.fau.edu> Date: 5 Sep 91 22:36:57 GMT Sender: daemon@genbank.bio.net Distribution: bionet Lines: 76