mammuthus
Posts: 13
Joined: June 2009
|
By the way, all this genetic entropy (why the stupid name, why not just Muller's Ratchet?) stuff relates to the work of Laurence Loewe at Edinburgh. He's done a lot of research on Muller's Ratchet, well worth checking out:
http://evolutionary-research.net/people/lloewe
also see these classic papers by Michael Lynch:
Lynch, M. et al. 1993. Mutational meltdowns in asexual populations. J. Heredity 84: 339-344
http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch58.pdf
Gabriel, W. et al. 1993. Muller's ratchet and mutational meltdowns. Evolution 47: 1744-1757.
http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch62.pdf
I'm not a population geneticist or indeed any kind of evolutionary biologist whatsoever. But it's my impression that Sanford is saying nothing new; he's just trying to repackage issues that pop gen people have known about for decades. Indeed, occasional creationist basher Joe Felsenstein published one of the classic papers in this respect:
Felsenstein, J. (1974). The Evolutionary Advantage of Recombination. Genetics, 78, 737–756
Some time ago on PandasThumb, Felsenstein said he'd probably better read the Sanford book as creationists would be using it. S Cordova offered to send it to him. It'd be great to get his thoughts. I think this is the discussion:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/gamblers-ruin-i.html
|
