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

How many generations would it take for allele frequencies to change.specifically mammals with low offspring.

Well, that depends.If you look at what Haldane did (according to your quote) he tried to produce a ball-park figure for how many deaths would be required due to the less-adaptive trait being selected against. It turned out that in his math that could be answered in terms of a multiple of population size no matter how strong the selective pressure was, and no matter what the population size was.But the question of how much time it would take to achieve fixation does in fact depend on the strength of the selective pressure, and quite possibly on population size as well (I'll have to think about that). That's a different question.

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.Though to be honest. The other organism is not reproducing then the cost is lower.Edited by CoolBeans, : No reason given.

A single generation is all it takes. A generation with 1 million A alleles and 1 million B alleles followed by a generation with 999,999 A alleles and 1,000,001 B alleles is a change in allele frequencies.

Well of course Haldane did not calculate that as such, the creationist is simply lying.But in the second place, why would it be a problem? It may well be the case that only 1,667 beneficial mutations separate humans from chimps. It might be a lot less, I wouldn't be at all surprised. ReMine doesn't know --- nobody knows at present --- how many beneficial mutations actually make the difference.What ReMine is doing (implicitly or explicitly, I don't know how stupid he is) is assuming without the slightest shred of justification that every genetic difference between chimps and humans is the result of a beneficial mutation favored by natural selection rather than a neutral mutation fixed by genetic drift. And there is no reason at all for thinking this except that he wants to come up with some crappy creationist argument.Now it can be shown mathematically (I've done this myself, I'll dig out the working if you're interested) that genetic drift would account for all the differences between humans and chimps over the last seven million years or so, if all the variations were neutral (which they aren't). If we wish to introduce Haldane into the argument, we need to know how many of these differences are beneficial and favored by natural selection, rather than neutral and fixed by genetic drift. And ReMine doesn't know that any more than anyone else does.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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

That is batten's paper, not ReMine's. He argued that it doesnt matter if they are beneficial.Edited by CoolBeans, : No reason given.

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

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.

What I meant is that this change would need to replace the old one in the population. Please read the paper.

Then he's wrong, because the math clearly shows that he's wrong.It can be proved with some elegance that the rate of fixation of neutral mutations in the population is exactly equal to the rate of occurrence of neutral mutations in the individual. In fact, if I remember rightly, this was first proved by Haldane.And of course it matters. Haldane's result (the so-called "dilemma") is specifically about fixation by natural selection. It refers to the number of deaths that would need to occur if selection was operating, because of those individuals dying because selection was operating against them. If natural selection isn't operating, then Haldane's result doesn't apply.

This Walt ReMine's website with responses to rebutals.
http://saintpaulscience.com/Robert_Williams.htmEdited by CoolBeans, : No reason given.

So what you are saying is that alot of the changes are due to neutral mutation.I would be happy if you read his paper.

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

Read this:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane1.html