Index to bad takes
This is a series of mostly short pieces focusing on bad takes on the topic of biases in the introduction of variation, covering both the theory and the evidence.
- We have long known (Bad Takes #1) A reviewer responds to new results on the role of mutation bias with: “We have long known that mutation is important in evolution.” Bonus: Primo Carnera and Max Baer
- Mutation pressure (Bad Takes #2) An author says that “The notion that mutation pressure can be a driving force in evolution is not new,” citing 7 authors from Darwin to Nei. We consider a more coherent conception of evolution by mutation pressure per Haldane and Fisher.
- Independent cause of adaptation (Bad Takes #3) Trolls mischaracterize the theory of biases in the introduction process as a theory of mutation bias as an independent cause of adaptation.
- Mutation-driven (Bad Takes #4) A classic bad-faith argument: “Selection ultimately drove these adaptive allele frequency changes, rather than evolution being ‘mutation-driven’ as some might claim.”
- Contingency (Bad Takes #5) The recently observed effect of mutation bias on adaptation is nothing new, because it is just the same thing as contingency.
- Requires “drift in small populations” (Bad Takes #6) The efficacy of biases in the introduction process depends on drift (no, it doesn’t).
- Requires sign epistasis (Bad Takes #7) The efficacy biases in the introduction process requires sign epistasis (no, it doesn’t).