An interesting set of possible explanations, yet they do not contradict the basic fact that some mechanisms are at work that make a difference for "mutation adaptivity" (if you'll buy the term).
You are proposing some specific mechanisms, like mechanisms that - auto-repair (so when do they choose NOT to repair?) - when active - suppress random mutations; when rendered inert - allow harmless random mutation to become more common -...
I do not know whether these are indeed the mechanisms at work, but if they are - you are just giving excellent examples of the mechanisms that may be at work.
It remains seemingly a fact that some mechanisms are at work that select for adaptive behavior some of the time. This is not what they taught us at school!
Sorry this logic does not make sense for me. Accepting that citric acid was a "stress factor" - still in the first half of the test a random mutation would not be more fatal then no mutation at all. Would expect the same number of randoms and of course a few flourishing
There is a totally fascinating aspect to these findings that should make our thinking about evolution much deeper.
Look at the "adaptive" and "random" mutations they report. Think about it for a minute!
"Adaptive" mutations do not really fit with what we learned in school. We learned that mutations are "random" and by luck a few are adaptive.
Here we see a long stretch (20000 generations) where most mutations are "adaptive"; then a similarly long stretch (another 20000 or so) where most are random. The second half fits the stuff we were taught at school. The first half is a fascinating hint that evolution is not always driven by randomness.
What exactly lies behind this? We do not yet know. As the authors say correctly,this "cautions against categorical interpretations about rates of genomic evolution in nature without specific knowledge of molecular and population-genetic processes".
Science progresses people. We are learning new things here. Evolution is not always driven by randomness...
To add to the points made above. Its NOT expensive to start this process, and you can build it so the cost is under control, and the bigger chunks of $$ come only later (when you are more confident of the business potential and you want to spend the money). Specifically:
1. it does not matter whether you are a US citizen or not, you can still file a provisional patent in the USPTO and get full rights
2. As people said, a provisional for a small entity costs $110 these days and can be done from the USPTO website
3. even better - there is an international process that allows you to patent worldwide country by country. Its expensive, so do not start with it. But going to the USPTO and filing a provisional counts for "setting the start date" for that entire process (!) So if you decide to do it later - you will be happy you started small.
4. even a non-provisional patent is not too expensive to start. You can do it yourself (!) To be honest the lawyers are more necessary here since the exact wording is more important - but see next point.
5. you can word both the provisional and non-provisional yourself, and get a lawyer only when the patent office sends you the inevitable challenges and questions (about 1-2 years after you started the process). I know someone who does it that way and he gets the real "biggest bang for the buck".
Good luck. And don't worry about the "patents are evil" crowd. You have plenty of good company coping with the same questions.
Slashdot Mirror
An interesting set of possible explanations, yet they do not contradict the basic fact that some mechanisms are at work that make a difference for "mutation adaptivity" (if you'll buy the term).
You are proposing some specific mechanisms, like mechanisms that ...
- auto-repair (so when do they choose NOT to repair?)
- when active - suppress random mutations; when rendered inert - allow harmless random mutation to become more common
-
I do not know whether these are indeed the mechanisms at work, but if they are - you are just giving excellent examples of the mechanisms that may be at work.
It remains seemingly a fact that some mechanisms are at work that select for adaptive behavior some of the time. This is not what they taught us at school!
Sorry this logic does not make sense for me. Accepting that citric acid was a "stress factor" - still in the first half of the test a random mutation would not be more fatal then no mutation at all. Would expect the same number of randoms and of course a few flourishing
There is a totally fascinating aspect to these findings that should make our thinking about evolution much deeper.
Look at the "adaptive" and "random" mutations they report. Think about it for a minute!
"Adaptive" mutations do not really fit with what we learned in school. We learned that mutations are "random" and by luck a few are adaptive.
Here we see a long stretch (20000 generations) where most mutations are "adaptive"; then a similarly long stretch (another 20000 or so) where most are random. The second half fits the stuff we were taught at school. The first half is a fascinating hint that evolution is not always driven by randomness.
What exactly lies behind this? We do not yet know. As the authors say correctly,this "cautions against categorical interpretations about rates of genomic evolution in nature without specific knowledge of molecular and population-genetic processes".
Science progresses people. We are learning new things here. Evolution is not always driven by randomness...
To add to the points made above. Its NOT expensive to start this process, and you can build it so the cost is under control, and the bigger chunks of $$ come only later (when you are more confident of the business potential and you want to spend the money). Specifically: 1. it does not matter whether you are a US citizen or not, you can still file a provisional patent in the USPTO and get full rights 2. As people said, a provisional for a small entity costs $110 these days and can be done from the USPTO website 3. even better - there is an international process that allows you to patent worldwide country by country. Its expensive, so do not start with it. But going to the USPTO and filing a provisional counts for "setting the start date" for that entire process (!) So if you decide to do it later - you will be happy you started small. 4. even a non-provisional patent is not too expensive to start. You can do it yourself (!) To be honest the lawyers are more necessary here since the exact wording is more important - but see next point. 5. you can word both the provisional and non-provisional yourself, and get a lawyer only when the patent office sends you the inevitable challenges and questions (about 1-2 years after you started the process). I know someone who does it that way and he gets the real "biggest bang for the buck". Good luck. And don't worry about the "patents are evil" crowd. You have plenty of good company coping with the same questions.