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

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.

Why is it worthless?

No-one knows.

I thought I'd explained that. Do you have any specific questions?

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?

No. Read it through again until you understand it.Haldane's math relates to the fixation of beneficial variations by natural selection. It does not relate to the fixation of neutral mutations by genetic drift, where you get a completely different answer.

I meant that it would be the 1667 mutations plus the neutral mutations. I should have been more clear. My fault

OK. If Haldane's assumptions were right (and some have suggested that they are not) then a ball-park figure of about 2000 beneficial mutations, give or take an order of magnitude, might be about right. I wouldn't be surprised if it was rather fewer.

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.

I dont think so. I personally think it could be problematic.

Er ... by being sufficient? What do you mean, "how"?I'm not the one pretending to have a quantitative argument. It would be up to the creationists to show that the number of beneficial mutations they calculate can have happened are insufficient to explain the observed effects. Instead, since they can't do that, they obfuscate the distinction between beneficial mutations and neutral mutations, and they tell lies. Once I've pointed out that their argument is bullshit, I feel that my work here is done.

Hmmm.. True but to be honest I dont understand why they are jus base pair mutations? Why cant they be full genes?

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.

They are not alleles. They are 1667 beneficial mutations.

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