Extent of Mutational Capability

If you have a case that time to fixity should be used rather than the number of mutations that are expected to be fixed within the time period then make it. The fact that I've made the point and you have failed to answer rather suggests that it is your knowledge that is lacking.

Yes, I am sure.Consider a timed race where the competitors start at fixed intervals. During the period in which the competitors are finishing the number that arrive within any particular sub-period has very little to do with the time taken to complete the course.

quote:

---

Say we are looking at a period of 100 generations with 100 mutations expected to be fixed from generation 1.
If the mean time to fixity is 100 generations then we would expect 50 of those mutations to be fixed in the time available.
If the mean time to fixity is 1000 generations then very few, possibly none, of those mutations will be fixed in the time time available.

---

The thing you are missing is that we are not restricted to those mutations. As I pointed out earlier there will be mutations from earlier generations moving to fixation. Ignoring them will obviously underestimate the number that are fixed.

quote:

---

The number of mutations that are expected to be fixed within the time period DEPENDS on the time to fixity

---

In fact it does not. You really shouldn't be accusing others of failing to understand the subject when you don't understand it yourself.The more so, since the number expected to be fixed is clearly the right answer, while your argument is obviously wrong.

1) according to the estimate of mean time to fixation provided by you the vast majority of genes fixed by drift should be variations found in the ancestral population. Your claim that it would "probably" be insufficient lacks any real support and cannot stand. The fact that you chose to do the wrong calculation despite the explanations hardly stands in your favour either.2) the figure you give is almost certainly far too low and too recent.3) your assessment dishonestly leaves out the fact that the indirect measurements are more reliable and give the higher numbers. Did you really think you could get away with that ?4) given that you have to intentionally underestimate the number of mutations that would be fixed it is pretty obvious that your opinion is worthless on this, too.

1) just saying that it won't solve the problem without any valid argument is mere assertion. And your calculation is meaningless without knowing how many mutations are available.3) when the direct measurement is only partial and has to be extrapolated - or you could actually try reading the article. And yes, I do think I can "get away" with accurately representing it.4) your calculation of the number of mutations to be fixed is an intentional underestimate which doesn't even try to be correct.