Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Population Genetics
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 14 of 90 (364037)
11-16-2006 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Hyroglyphx
11-15-2006 11:09 PM


Can you explain why ReMine's claim of a maximum of 1667 beneifical nucleotide substitutions should be considered valid ?
Larger mutations - transpositions, substitutions and deletions - are reasonably common and can include dozens or even hundreds of nucleotides. Why should we ignore these ?
How do you measure the number of nucleotide changes in a substitution ? Given a polymorphic gene (multiple alleles in the pool) what is the baseline ? Does ReMine's claim even make sense ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-15-2006 11:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 11-16-2006 6:57 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2006 11:37 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 90 (364041)
11-16-2006 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Modulous
11-16-2006 6:57 AM


Yes, ReMine does pretty much claim that the limit is nucleotides
quote:
My immediate response is, "Who are they kidding." I would feel differently about their posturing if the public could recall a serious history of leading evolutionists claiming a limit of 1,667 beneficial nucleotides is "not a problem." But no such history exists. Even the 1,667 limit itself was the trade secret of evolutionary genetics.1 I was the first to bring it to public attention.
And if ReMines argument on that doesn't make sense then why trust what he says elsewhere ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 11-16-2006 6:57 AM Modulous has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 90 (364091)
11-16-2006 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Hyroglyphx
11-16-2006 11:37 AM


quote:
Again, this isn't ReMine's baby, its Haldane's.
False. The idea that the substitution rate typically refers to single nucleotides is ReMines - not Haldanes.
And Haldanes numbers were based on assumptions that are certainly not guaranteed to hold (e.g. the assumption that all selection is "hard" selection)
quote:
Well, that's a good question. According to evolutionary geneticists, each of those substitutions is typically represented as one nucleotide, not thousands of nucleotide differences.
That isn't even what ReMine says ! If you can really show me an evolutionary geneticist saying that we should count a large insert or transposition as a single nucleotide change - when in fact it is many - please go ahead. Personally I just think you are spouting words you don't understand.
quote:
The odds of having as much as 84 nucleotide change is an astronomical figure that greatly exceeds 1050, which is mathematically representative of "absolute zero."
A simple case of garbage in, garbage out. The fact that you don't explain what you are calculating or how just makes it nonsense.
quote:
ReMine goes over this, because you aren't the only one to offer gene clusters as a possible solution, such as pleiotropy or really anything considered polygenous
But I wasn't offering a solution or referring to gene clusters or pleiotropy. I was simply asking how you could measure how you could measure the number of nucleotide substitutions when a gene is polymorphous to start with (i.e. has more than one allele). And you don't offer a real answer, instead you ustt quote ReMine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2006 11:37 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024