Replies

Perhaps it was not clear from the post you answered, but the assumption which what you call assumption 1 was speaking of was of a completely new mutant duplicate gene or of a completely new mutated gene which of course was not to be found anywhere in the species. So for that assumption, due to mendellian genetics, the explanation given is correct.

Go back and reread both your post and my answer. I was using the situation which you set up. I will restate my assumption 1 about your hypothetical situation: That a population of 1000 has 500 breeding pairs, and each pair has 10 offspring (10 is your number, not mine. Your hypothetical placed one mutant in that population, with a 50% chance of any one offspring inheriting the mutation.

Let me also add that neutral alleles remain at a constant frequency only in very large populations

The rules are the same for any population size. For mathematical simplicity, we discount random events. In the real world, random events do occur, and they are powerful forces pushing evolution.

I stated my assumption above, which perhaps was not clear from what you read. I do not see how your 2nd assumption fits the question I was trying to answer. Kindly explain

In your example, your numbers indicated that the mutant, and only the mutant, was part of a breeding pair that produced 10 offspring, half of which inherited the mutation, as per my assumption 1 (sexual reproduction). However, your population size as a whole was increasing as if each individual was producing 10 offspring, as per my assumption 2 (asexual reproduction). Either every individual pairs up to produce offspring or every individual produces offspring asexually, in which case all the mutant's offspring are mutants. You cannot mix the two types of reproduction, as you did in your example.

You are somewhat new to our evolution/creationism threads, and I like your posting style. I further delight in your education. So it's only fair to warn you ... posting to g3k (as we abbreviate his screename) will plunge you into frustration and dispair. I speak not only for myself, but I think I'm expressing the cumulative opinions of several other regulars who have had the experience of attempting to converse with g3k over the last year or so.

He slings some big words around, but he does not know any science. He does not know what "proof" means. (In his mind, he has "proven" all his points; we have yet to make any points at all.) He never acknowledges that he has ever made an error, notwithstanding dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of well-documented howlers. He greets any factual information that he doesn't like as a lie, and an assault on his religion. (In his mind, his brand of creationism literally IS Christianity.) In the next thread, he will "forget" any points you have made, and he will repeat his well-debunked nonsense. He seems impervious to reason. And -- this is the most pernicious -- he will accuse YOU of lying, ignoring facts, being unreasonable, etc.

Anyway, welcome aboard, and I hope you hang around our threads. But you can't let g3k discourage you. Personally, I regard him as entertainment. And I generally don't read his stuff at all. That makes things very tolerable around here.

Perhaps you should know who "PatrickHenry is as well:

Unbridled lust leads to frustration and misunderstanding despite Jimmy Carter's advice to the lustlorn

Highlights include:

You were groping me on the thread. I warned you, you groped on, I pushed the abuse button. Very simple. You then went whining to all your friends and relations. I received about 4 emails from different people: "What happened?" "What did you DO?" "Who are you? Are you impersonating someone?" and other silly tinfoil stuff.
Why would you grope me? Because I had told you in a freepmail as to not embarrass you for comments which indicated your confusion that I was a woman. Do you deny that you received such a freepmail from me? Do you deny that you used it against me on the thread?
Whiners receive lots of attention and scrutiny. If other threads of yours were pulled, my guess is you were harassing someone else.

Then again, there're the FR threads on Who is PatrickHenry...

You get some real winners in the professional Evolutionist circle here...

For the lowdown on Chuck Darwin, stupidest white man of all time and his BS theory, and on the continuing efforts of feebs like Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge to keep the charade going for another generation:

In your example, your numbers indicated that the mutant, and only the mutant, was part of a breeding pair that produced 10 offspring, half of which inherited the mutation, as per my assumption 1 (sexual reproduction). However, your population size as a whole was increasing as if each individual was producing 10 offspring, as per my assumption 2 (asexual reproduction). Either every individual pairs up to produce offspring or every individual produces offspring asexually, in which case all the mutant's offspring are mutants. You cannot mix the two types of reproduction, as you did in your example.

You are correct, I was wrong. Now I understand my mistake. In sexual production we have a pair of organisms and in a stable population there will be two progeny from the organism with the mutant, which according to the laws of chance means that one of the two should carry the mutant gene. So the fate of a new mutation is not as awful as I thought it was.

However, that as you say " A trait which confers neither a survival advantage nor disadvantage remains in the population at a constant frequency" presents severe problems for the theory of evolution. For one thing, such a mutation will never spread through the population. This is necessary for it to be able to gain mutations which will turn it into a favorable mutation and give it the possibility of becoming widely adopted throughout the species.

There is another problem with such a new mutation not being able to spread. Even though it is true that a trait remains in the population at a constant frequency, this is only true when the sample is large. A new mutation has (in a constant size population) only one chance. That is why even such a pro-evolutionist site as TalkOrigins, and a pro-evolutionist author there is forced into the admission that:

Neutral alleles Most neutral alleles are lost soon after they appear. The average time (in generations) until loss of a neutral allele is 2(Ne/N) ln(2N) where N is the effective population size (the number of individuals contributing to the next generation's gene pool) and N is the total population size. Only a small percentage of alleles fix. Fixation is the process of an allele increasing to a frequency at or near one. The probability of a neutral allele fixing in a population is equal to its frequency. For a new mutant in a diploid population, this frequency is 1/2N.
From: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

This may sound strange to many, but the originator of the theory of population genetics, Ronald A. Fisher in "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" (1958), admitted as much in spite of being such a devout evolutionist that he had originally tried to challenge the accuracy of Mendellian genetics. The reason for the loss of such a new gene is quite simply explained. With only one sample, at any time that the laws of chance do not even out, (in this example when neither of the two progeny carries the mutation), the mutation will die out. Since the mutation is not spreading, the likelihood of this happening is quite high. In fact, even a mutation with a slight degree of benefit would also be lost in this manner.