Kleinman writes:
You think the world is filled with only A variant weeds and B variant weeds. And suppose you also think that both variants are homozygous at both loci for each variant. So no matter which variants mate, you will get an AB offspring.
So you just ignore the scenario. I can see why since it disproves your entire thesis.
I never assumed they would be homozygous. Heterozygotes for A and B would have 25% of the offspring with AB. Have you never heard of a Punnett square?
Let's see if I can explain it simply enough so that even a dumbbell math drop-out can understand how the multiplication rule still applies. Assume both fields have equal populations for simplicity so the frequency of A variants will be 0.5 and the frequency of B variants will be 0.5. Then, the probability of an A-B recombination event in a single recombination will be 0.5, not 1.0 because you can also have an A-A (probability 0.25) recombination event and a B-B (probability 0.25) recombination event. So your next argument is going to be, there are millions of recombination events going on here and surely, an A-B recombination event will occur in at least one of those recombination events. And you would be right. A fish evolves into mammals clique member can set up a scenario where he can breed herbicide-resistant weeds.
Read what I wrote:
Weed A is exposed to pesticide A in one region and develops resistance. Weed B is exposed to pesticide B in a different region and develops resistance.
We bring Weed A and Weed B into the same region. How many generations before you get resistance to pesticides A and B in a single weed?
The answer is one single generation. Doesn't take much math to figure it out. There will be at least some offspring from weed A and weed B, and some of those offspring will have the mutations for both types of resistance.
I never said 100% of the population. I said one weed, or some of the offspring. Please read what I write.
Imagine you haven't used any herbicides
Imagine that I have. We are discussing my scenario, not yours. If your views of DNA evolution only work in very narrow scenarios then you have a serious problem.
™ Version 4.2