You seem to be equivocating the fact of evolution with the theory of evolution, invoquing that since we know the former is ''true'' (I don't think it is, but from your point of view) then obviously the later is true as well.
But it doesn't follow. Neo-Darwinian evolution as a theory uses two mechanisms: mutations and natural selection. This is supposed to be able to explain the fact of evolution shown by the fossil record, amongst other things (which by the way, shows much more ponctuated equilibrium in my humble opinion.)
But if Mutation+NS is being discovered to be unable to provide the fact of evolution, then other avenues must be searched. Possibly a third mechanism that, added with the two others, can be shown to produce the evolution of a population. At this stage, the fact of evolution has not being challenged.
But I do not think, and you will probably agree with me, that you can really bring up the fact of evolution, and through it protect the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. If simple mutations+NS is shown to be unable to produce the fact of evolution, than other avenues must be searched.
Rereading your post before sending mine, this is not exactly what you are doing. I still post it anyways as I find it a good addition to the overall discussion.
I think he was more talking about the evidence brought up by modern genetics. (number of mutations per person per generation. Beneficial to deleterious ratio of these mutations. The danegrs of mutational meltdown, etc.)
You always seem to be bringing up the fall for whatever reason I don't know. And you tag it here as the evidence Phydeaux is talking about, which it clearly was not.
Yeah I read his book. And well I do remember the part you are citing implicitly about his opinion of population geneticists.
But I do remember that recently he peer-reviewed an article about population genetics (specifically selection cost), the other peer-reviewers (they were 4 or 5 in total) were Crow, Kondrashov and one or two others.
So well I would think that he is considered knowledgeable enough to peer-review papers on the subject, than he probably is enough to write on it.
It is because, as WK said, you are assuming the number of mutations per individual per generation is the same in Drosophilia then in humans. But of course it is not.
The reason for this is simple: the mutations happen during transcription. Since both Drosophilia and humans are both eukaryotic, they have the same transcription method, and so the same amount of mutations per transcription. However, since a human generation is 20years, by the time the individual does reproduce, his reproductive cells that produce the spermatozoides (sorry I don't have the exact terminology) have duplicated a lot more than if it was only a half-year generation for example, and so they have more mutations per generation
And so, the smaller generation time is actually and advantage to last longer, since if natural selection can only act after 20years of ccumulatio nin the case of humans, in the case of drosophilia, it can act every couple of days, which in turn runs counter to mutation accumulations. In fact, the most optimal is selection between each transcription, which happens in the unicellulr organisms.
AbE This reply would be actually more approriate in a reply to message no38 by PaulK, I clicked the wrong one.
Yeah my bad, I usd the word transcription instead of replication.
But, if we would reproduce at age 10, wouldn't the germ cells have replicated twice as less, and so the DNA they would contain would have had twice as less mistakes as compared to the parents DNA ? If not, why ?
The germ cell don't undergo meiosis before puberty, but they still have to undergo mitosis in order to produce other germ cells from. Mutations would still accumulate in the germ cell lineages even during mitosis.
I agree that a larger genome will of course make for a higher mutation per individual rate. (and it probably would be a linear relationship I would guess)
But couldn't the effects would be cumulative ? This is all new territory for me, so I still have questions.
So we start creating our germ cell populations during development. Once it is 'created', do these germ cells divide frequently or do they stay ''dormant'' until puberty ? Because I would think that if they did have to divide in order to maintain their population, then this would introduce once again more mutations in the genome the longer the individual would have to 'wait' until puberty/reproduction.