On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 23:41:39 +0000, alexandru_mg3 <
alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:
> I doubt that with the current genetics models somebody can be sure
>that the mutations are "neutral" in "most cases" related to
>the "selection criteria".
> Some simple questions here :
> 1) in this case what are the mutations for ? Not to generate
>possible "better samples"?
Of course not. The mutations are not "for" anything. They're just copy
errors.
> 2) can somebody tell us for sure with the current genetics models
>what "the fittest" means in all cases, to can declare
>the "neutrality"?
You can look at this from several levels.
Some 30% percent of all mutations (at least within within "normal", coding
DNA) are demonstrably neutral, given that, because of the redundancy in the
genetic code, it usually doesn't matter what the final element in the
3-element codon is. Those copy errors do not affect the genetic message.
Most of the mutations that *do* change the genetic code are lethal.
I suppose Piotr was referring to mutations that are neither irrelevant nor
lethal. It would be grossly off-topic to go into great detail here about
why what Piotr said is indeed true, and most significant and viable
mutations are selectively neutral. I'd suggest you discuss that on an
biological or evolutionary forum or read the relevant literature.
To return to on-topicness, mutations in language are *always* selectively
neutral.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...