How long would it take for a novel alelle to be fixated in a population?

THere are two things you need to know.First, Haldane's figures are rough estimates. To pass them off as definite facts is irresponsible, at best.Second, Haldane's dilemma assumes "hard" selection, where the population without the new allele are incapable of reproducing fast enough to maintain the population. "Soft" selection, where the population is not in danger, but those with the new allele outcompete the rest, or drift, allow multiple alleles to be fixed in parallel. The absolute time for any one allele to achieve fixation may be higher but the number that can be fixed over a given period is also higher than Haldane's dilemma implies.

i should add to this that the majority of the difference between human and chimpanzee is in "junk" DNA which is not subject to selection. This DNA changes by genetic drift and is not subject to the "dilemma"

Much, much more than 20% of human DNA is "junk".According to biochemist Larry Moran, as of 2011 65% of human DNA was known "junk", 8.7% was known not to be, and 26.3% was unknown.So somewhere in the 80-90% range would be far more likely.

quote:

---

On your soft selection answer. The author says he adressed that already. He says that the cost of substitution is unnavoidable. He says that when an organism reproduces by 1 per birth. It would require that this organis will have to rerpduce to 2.25 rate. Its in his paper.

---

In soft selection the cost of selection is paid by deaths that would occur anyway (that's what makes it "soft"). And I have to point out that all species DO produce considerably more offspring than would be needed to replace the population if all of them survived. Which is all that soft selection needs. Edited by PaulK, : A more reasonable title

quote:

---

ll I wouldnt say that all the population needs to be replaced .

---

It is necessary to maintain a stable population. In fact it is necessary for any species to be capable of producing more offspring than are needed to replace the population, if it is going to survive. If it did not then any disaster would result in a permanent reduction to the population, eventually leading to extinction.

And it immediately opens with a lie. Williams claimed to be rebutting internet postings by ReMine, not ReMine's book.

Actually I remember the original controversy on talk.origins...But if you look at the webpage all it claims to refute is the application of Haldane's calculation to rule out human evolution from a common ancestor with chimpanzees.A claim that ReMine DOES make in the book.

I don't think that ReMine's paper is worth reading. There are a whole lot of reasons why you can't use the actual differences between human and chimp DNA to get the number of alleles that have to be fixed by hard selection. (Another, which I haven't mentioned before, is that fixation of an allele will almost certainly fix multiple mutations - mostly neutral).So, we don't have a good estimate of the number of alleles that have to be fixed by hard selection, and we don't even have that good an estimate of how many could be. So what's left of ReMine's argument?

quote:

---

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?

---

Assuming that Haldane's rough estimate is right (and it probably isn't). It would be a maximum of 1667 alleles fixed by hard selection. Each allele would likely include multiple mutations (mostly neutral) and the beneficial mutations need not be point mutations either (and it would be incredibly unlikely for all of them to be). Even excluding neutral mutations a figure of more than 1667 base pairs is easily possible.

No, fixation always refers to alleles. It may work out the same, but it doesn't have to.

And the answeris that it depends on the strength of selection, population size, effects of drift. More, because multiple alleles can be proceeding to fixation at the same time any argument that relies on adding up the times is wrong.

Are you actually claiming that ReMine attempted to argue that only 1667 BASE PAIRS could be fixed between modern humans and their common ancestor with chimpanzees ? Because if he did , that's another reason why the paper isn't worth reading.