Joined: Oct. 2005
Update on PaV
Update on “microevolution”:
Wouldn’t you expect that base transitions would be of equal probability if “chance” is involved? Of course. Well, what has been found? Depending on the phyla, you get different, non-random base transition values; that is, A->T is not the same as C->G, G->C is different from C->G, etc, and these values vary depending on the phyla. This is wildly opposite what “random” processes would produce
Of course, there's no reason why "chance" has to be equal for all 4 bases. Indeed, a more random process would be one in which the rates of change themselves were random.
Oh, and this is an update. But how long have we known about this?
|Additionally, in studying certain bacterial cultures in the lab, they have found that the allele frequency say, for example, glucose-to-galactose metabolism, never goes to zero. IOW, there is always some bacteria retaining the glucose metabolism allele even in an environment where only galactose is found. This completely negates population genetics wherein they say that in such a population the gene frequency will go to zero in 2N generations.|
Ah, this must be a different population genetics. The one I learned told me that the frequency of bacteria would equal the mutation rate. This is classical Modern Synthesis stuff, worked out by Haldane.
|Both these findings are possible because of cheaper methods of analyzing genomes. What other surprises are lurking?|
I don't know. Something new, like that was discovered after 1980, perhaps?
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)