Nosyned wrote:
It wasn't about uniqueness from my parents but the whole generation alive while I am. The search through the genome space by mutations/natural selection if the genome is getting lots of nice, shiny, new mutations but if all the individuals of a generation have the same "new" mutations there are only 100 to go around. But if each have "unique" mutations there are over half a trillion to work with.
Uniqueness may not be the best measure of allelic importance, or of the meaning of generational cohorts of alleles. I don't really know what "unique" means in the digital world of alleles. Better measures of alleles, I think, determine if they are beneficial, neutral, or harmful, and if they are favored or not by selection.
In this regard, I defer to what Daniel Hartl & Elizabeth Jones say about mutations of alleles in their book
Essential Genetics/A Genomic Perspective (2002, p. 523):
quote:
It is apparent . that selection tends to eliminate harmful alleles from a population. However, harmful alleles can never be eliminated totally because recurrent mutation of the normal allele continually creates new harmful alleles. These new mutations tend to replenish the harmful alleles eliminated by selection. Eventually the population will attain a state of equilibrium in which the new mutations exactly balance the selective eliminations.
So, it would be fair to say that any state of "uniqueness" amongst mutating alleles is actually a state of utility flux, or a state of dynamic equilibrium in a digital context, owing to the fact that this whole serade takes place among the just four digital nucleotides, wherein analogues of selection moderate the digits of mutation.
Hope this helps more than confounds the isxue.
”HM
™ Version 4.2
