JAM
Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 06 2007,20:10) | The concept of evolutionary constraint (as I understand it) is based on the theory that mutations are generally rejected in functional sequences because they are usually deleterious, but mutations in neutral sites are not rejected. Therefore the sequences that have remained alike (are constrained) across related lineages can be inferred to be functional while those that have changed a lot are inferred non-functional (neutral).
My prediction is that there are many functional sequences that are different (even radically so) amongst related lineages - this due to their being of designed, not mutational, origin. |
Daniel,
Much better! I retract and apologize for my insult; it was mainly a strategy to get you to respond in a coherent way. It's also an example of how hypotheses yield new data even when they are incorrect.
The main criterion you're missing is that you need to apply your hypothesis to something more specific. I'm here to help.
One clarification--when you wrote "functional sequences," you meant groups of sequences with the same or similar biological function(s), correct?
| Quote | | So when I say evolutionary constraint as an indicator of functionality will have to be abandoned, I am expecting my prediction to be experimentally verified. |
Luckily for you, the "experiment" has already been done. The scientific method works even when the data already exist--the power of the method is in the prediction. Shall we sample a protein family or ten? Any functions that you find particularly interesting?
|
