|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How long would it take for a novel alelle to be fixated in a population? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
Read this:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane1.html Haldane's Dilemma is based upon the substitution cost introduced by J.B.S. Haldane in his classic 1957 paper "The Cost of Natural Selection" (Haldane, 1957). ReMine addresses these issues in his book "The Biotic Message" (ReMine, 1993).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
Oh... But do you tink that rate, organisms will be able to change drastically? While some features may be due to neutral mutations how man of them may due to beneficial mutations?
So have you finished reading his paper? Edited by CoolBeans, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
Its a pdf, so I cant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
Haldane's old model? — Haldane used a multiplicative-fitness model. (Moreover, for the parameters he used, it also approximates an additive-fitness model.) Both of those fitness models are still predominantly used today. Everything in "Haldane's model" is current with today's practice of evolutionary genetics (including Haldane's uses of fitness, fitness models, selection, alleles, genes, dominance, and Mendelian segregation). So if evolutionists throw-out "Haldane's model" they must also throw-out the modern textbooks on evolutionary genetics. Small selection coefficients? — Haldane assumed selection coefficients approaching zero. This gives the absolute minimum total-cost of substitution in each case. If you break Haldane's assumption, and invoke higher selection coefficients, then the cost increases, resulting in fewer substitutions, and Haldane's Dilemma worsens. The environmental-change scenario? — Haldane assumed substitutions begin in a peculiar way, via an environmental-change scenario. The scenario operates as follows. Neutral and slightly harmful mutations (though almost always eliminated outright) sometimes drift upwards in frequency, to arrive at moderate frequencies. Then, when the environment changes, one of these neutral or slightly harmful mutations is converted (it is alleged) into a beneficial mutation. This elevated starting frequency is where Haldane begins to tally the total-cost of the substitution. By giving the substitution a free head-start to an elevated frequency, it lowers the total cost of substitution. This cost-reduction is the only impact of the environmental-change scenario that Haldane allowed into his calculations. If you break Haldane's assumption, then it raises the total-cost of substitution, and worsens Haldane's Dilemma.1 Constant population size? — Haldane assumed the population size remains constant throughout a given substitution (though he allowed large varieties of population size, each for a different substitution). That was done partly for mathematical simplification (in the era before computers were readily available to readers). When evolutionists break this assumption, they do not "solve" Haldane's Dilemma. They merely obscure it further. There is always a cost of substitution; it is unavoidable. It is not enough to merely object to Haldane's simplification. Evolutionists must actually s-o-l-v-e Haldane's Dilemma. Infinite population size? — Evolutionists sometimes claim Haldane assumed an unrealistic "infinite population size." That is untrue. If Haldane had done that, then the total-cost of substitution would always be infinite — when Haldane calculated its average value is 30. So Haldane obviously did not use an infinite population size. Rather, Haldane used something at the other end of the spectrum. To see it, take a haploid species, and suppose there are two independent alleles, A and B (at independently segregating loci), each with a frequency of one per thousand. By random mating, the genotype AB (containing both alleles, A and B) would have a frequency of one per million. But if the population size is only one thousand individuals, then in a given generation, genotype AB cannot actually exist at a frequency of one in a million. Instead, either that genotype exists as a whole individual, or it does not exist — it either has a frequency of one per thousand, or zero. There is no 'in-between' when dealing with individuals that are quantized into whole-bodies. This difficulty is handled by Haldane, and by virtually all textbooks today, in the same way — by using non-quantized individuals. To greatly simplify the math, and to generalize the results, they allow a genotype to exist at its expected frequency (without having to quantize the genotype into, say, 1000 whole-bodies). Put simply, Haldane assumed non-quantized individuals, not infinite population size. If evolutionists want to throw-out that simplifying assumption, then they would have to throw-out virtually all of today's evolutionary genetics textbooks. And it still would not solve Haldane's Dilemma. This are some of his assumptions. That even if wrong wouldnt solve the problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
1667 base pair substitutions?
this what he is claiming. Edited by CoolBeans, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
1,667 substitutions = 10,000,000 / (20 * 300) Substitutions = (Years) / [(Years / Generation) * (Generations / Substitution)] One thing to note is that its based on one lineage. I dont feel this correct since. How would he know how much change in the genome is needed. Thgerefore the argument is based on believing that it would not be enough. Edited by CoolBeans, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
I should have added beneficial in there.
You are right on both parts, though. I mean 1667 base pair mutations seems to be a little low. What mistakes could he have made on his paper?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
So are those 1667 base pair mutatons enough? or he is wrong about the limit.
The 1,667 substitutions are typically single nucleotides, not 1,667 whole genes. Edited by CoolBeans, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
Why is it worthless?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
So there would be 1667 beneficial base pair mutations and neutral mutations to account for our species. Other than that I cant think of anything other than gene expression.
Is there anything wrong with ReMine's calculation's or results?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
I meant that it would be the 1667 mutations plus the neutral mutations. I should have been more clear. My fault
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
please explain how 1667 mutations would be sufficient and more importantly how are his assumption wrong. Also note that it was about 10 million years. Now we know that it was about 6 million years, so thoes mutations are reduced.
Edited by CoolBeans, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
I dont think so. I personally think it could be problematic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
Hmmm.. True but to be honest I dont understand why they are jus base pair mutations? Why cant they be full genes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
They are not alleles. They are 1667 beneficial mutations.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024