a graph for borger to explain

someone posted this on infidels, I thought it was quite interesting
Figure C1. Distribution of genetic distances between human and mouse genes. The histogram is the actual data from 2,019 human and mouse genes. The solid curve shows the expected distribution of genetic distances assuming only a constant rate of background mutation (~10^-9 substitutions per site per year) (reproduced from Figure 3a in Kumar and Subramanian 2002).(originally from A response to Ashby Camp's "Critique")[The src attribute value was missing a close quote. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 10-29-2002]

bummer it didn't workanyway, this is the image adresshttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/evo_dist.gifand the legend:

quote:

---

Figure C1. Distribution of genetic distances between human and mouse genes. The histogram is the actual data from 2,019 human and mouse genes. The solid curve shows the expected distribution of genetic distances assuming only a constant rate of background mutation (~10^-9 substitutions per site per year) (reproduced from Figure 3a in Kumar and Subramanian 2002).

---

yes, normal distribution, a common shape when the variables are random

fred is correct in a way, because the graph represents differences between neutral positions within genes. What the graph does show however, is that random mutation does act within genes. If he wants to draw some invisible boundary for random mutations between redundant codon positions and those that cause a.a changes, well go ahead, but it sounds like a very "magical" and far-fetched explanation to me.

so how do you propose that random mutations act only on fourfold degenerate sites, and not all sites within the gene?

that post wasn't directed at you fred williams, I assume you accept that mutations can act randomly on all sites within a gene then?borger doesn't, he thinks mutations are directed, I want him to explain how random mutations are only able to act on neutral sites within a gene, considering that these sites are separated by only a few angstroms

I just read borgers most recent posts and it seems he now believes there are both random and non-random mutations, I don't know whether this graph had anything to do with it or not, but IIRC, borger used to claim that mutations are non-random (I assume he meant all mutations)ah well, theres no problem then, you guys have just tacked on non-random mutations to stick god in the tiny angstrom wide gap

sorry borger, I must have missed thatI have trouble keeping up with your fantastic (see: fantasy) explanations for why phylogenetics give all the indications of common descent

I think he means this question

quote:

---

I assume you accept that mutations can act randomly on all sites within a gene then?

---