Zachriel
Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote (Steve Schaffner @ June 16 2009,18:54) | | Quote (Zachriel @ June 14 2009,08:47) | If the genome is 3e8 bases in size (or any such large number) and there is an average of one mutation per child, then we expect that ~1/3 of the children will *not* have mutations. If each mother produces 6 children, then chances are that each new generation will include many individuals
without mutations. (E.g. mice often have several litters of 4-10 pups.)
|
True, although that's probably not a good model for humans, who have something between 1 and 3 deleterious mutations (probably) per birth, and more likely close to the top end than the bottom of the range. That doesn't mean that the population has to collapse genetically. It just means that in the steady state, everyone is carrying a fair number of deleterious mutations, with those having the most being the least likely to reproduce. |
It's probably not a good model for mice either. I'm trying a wide variety of parameters to determine the program's limits—or to break it. I've tried very high fecundity, high beneficial mutation rates, and various other extremes. What about additive vs. multiplicative mutational effects?
| Quote (AnsgarSeraph @ June 16 2009,19:00) | | Here are the files. The first two are fitness graphs: |
Is that with maximum beneficial effect equal to one versus default? Fraction favorable is set very high.
Consider this. If we use the defaults, then no beneficial mutation becomes fixed, which is contrary to fact. Even if you believe species are ultimately doomed to genetic meltdown, it still means the default parameters or the program itself has a problem.
--------------
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.
|
