(June 5, 2013 at 7:26 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Nope, neutral mutations have never been observed to increase genetic information or lead to a novel feature in a population of organisms, no more smoke and mirrors- your theory is dead.Again..and as usual, you appear to be arguing against your own theory.
Quote:A mutation must become fixed in the population by genetic drift if it is to be passed on or fixed in a population? That's news to me. More of your theory?
Nope, it must become fixed in the entire population through genetic drift, and as I correctly pointed out you do not have enough trials in order to originate any new functional genes through neutral mutation and then fix them in a population; it’s a ridiculous notion and you should know better.
Quote:Are you having trouble understanding what happens to allele frequency when one specific segment of a population becomes over-represented relative to the total population?
As I correctly pointed out you do not have the appropriate number of trials for neutral mutations to affect the genetic makeup of your hypothetical population so this scenario could never arise.
Quote: Not only that but believing all the genetic diversity we see today was a result of animals uniformly spreading themselves out according to their genetic makeup in order for an isolation event to separate them is quite hilarious.Agreed....so, thanks for the laugh, I guess?
Quote:When you’re arguing for mutations that are by definition selectively neutral all that is left are mathematical probabilities,Finally, you get something right.
Quote: and they do not favor your position in the slightest. There’s a reason Dawkins rejects this type of overemphasis on neutral mutations, the math does not add up.-and then fuck it up in the next breath. My position - as I have stated very simply is all that a mutation must be to be passed on or become fixed in a population is non-deleterious. Modern synthesis holds that while genetic drift is an inevitable consequence of the law of large numbers - of chance acting upon allele frequency...natural selection is a much more powerful and constant means of effecting change -this barring those instances of drift set in motion by population bottlenecks.
Quote:You’re not arguing for Modern Synthesis, you’re arguing for the Neutral Model of Evolution, the two are not synonymous, learn your theory.Thus leading me to conclude that you have absolutely no clue what you're on about - whatsoever.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
