quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Lethal recessive mutations do not occur at a steady fixed rate. They are exceedingly rare. The overwhelming majority of mutations are completely or nearly completely neutral. For a mutation to be a lethal recessive basically requires that that mutation render the protein produced ineffective at doing its job. Most amino acids that comprise a protein are simply filler to produce an enzyme of the correct size and shape. Substituting one for another will have either no effect or very minor effect. it is generally only possible to break a protein at one end or the other so lethal mutations are only possible in those very tiny regions of the genome and since mutation of any kind is a very rare event it simply does not follow that the rate can be predicted in the way you postulate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Furthermore you still fail to understand the flaw in your example. if the small population of 10 has one new, lethal recessive mutation in each generation then that means that 10 percent of that population has that specific lethal mutation and it will likely be expressed quite quickly. Your other population postulates 10 different lethal mutations in a generation of 100 which of course means that each lethal is only present in 1% of the population and it is much less likely to be expressed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Lethal recessive mutations do not occur at a steady fixed rate. They are exceedingly rare. The overwhelming majority of mutations are completely or nearly completely neutral. For a mutation to be a lethal recessive basically requires that that mutation render the protein produced ineffective at doing its job. Most amino acids that comprise a protein are simply filler to produce an enzyme of the correct size and shape. Substituting one for another will have either no effect or very minor effect. it is generally only possible to break a protein at one end or the other so lethal mutations are only possible in those very tiny regions of the genome and since mutation of any kind is a very rare event it simply does not follow that the rate can be predicted in the way you postulate.

It is a model for theoretical purposes, and as such it does not need to be realistic.

Are you now asserting that new lethal mutations in larger populations occur at another frequency than in smaller populations?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Furthermore you still fail to understand the flaw in your example. if the small population of 10 has one new, lethal recessive mutation in each generation then that means that 10 percent of that population has that specific lethal mutation and it will likely be expressed quite quickly. Your other population postulates 10 different lethal mutations in a generation of 100 which of course means that each lethal is only present in 1% of the population and it is much less likely to be expressed.

That is what my model shows: same absolute number of homozygotic lethal recessive and absence of heterozygotic lethal recessive, but at relatively ten times lower frequency. Why are you always repeating me?

I also notice that as usual you have not answered any of my questions.

I will have to think a bit more about the disparity between smaller and larger populations; it certainly is interesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'm telling you that there is no predictable rate of new lethal mutations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You still fail to grasp the significance in regards to your claims that close breeding does not result in increased instances of genetic disease.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'm telling you that there is no predictable rate of new lethal mutations.

There isn't?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You still fail to grasp the significance in regards to your claims that close breeding does not result in increased instances of genetic disease.

If only I knew what you were referring to, perhaps I might grasp that significance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'm telling you that there is no predictable rate of new lethal mutations.

There isn't?

What is the rate then? The rate of generic mutation is well known so you should be able to provide the other rate if it is possible to calculate. It isn't so you can't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You've repeatedly claimed that close breeding doesn't result in more frequent expression of genetic disease. You've also expressed the belief that close breeding will remove lethal recessives from the gene pool.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Both are incorrect as any actual population genetics math will show.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

six fingered amish, thats one thing hes talking about

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
a supersitious bunch of luddites they are

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

six fingered amish, thats one thing hes talking about

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'm telling you that there is no predictable rate of new lethal mutations.

There isn't?

What is the rate then? The rate of generic mutation is well known so you should be able to provide the other rate if it is possible to calculate. It isn't so you can't.

Supply me with the figures and I will calculate the rate.
Of course there is a rate. There is a rate for everything. That there is a rate is not an issue.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You've repeatedly claimed that close breeding doesn't result in more frequent expression of genetic disease. You've also expressed the belief that close breeding will remove lethal recessives from the gene pool.

Please supply quotes of these my statements, including post numbers if necessary.

quote:

This is where you go wrong and put the cart before the horse. Merely apply the evolution algorithm: any behavior that causes a disadvantageous reproductive effect, will be selected against by natural selection. The fact that these populations that are cursed with deleterious mutations are inbreeding, indicates conclusively that by not doing so they would be even worse off. They derive a huge reproductive benefit from inbreeding and it is quite obvious what that benefit is: the elimination of half of the deleterious alleles from their gene pool. Nevertheless that does not suffice to cleanse their gene pool, as compared to European Christian populations that do not circumcise their male offspring.

quote:

If you do agree, then please do explain why indigenous European Christian populations are so much better at removing deleterious mutations from their gene pool that the frequency of lethal inherited diseases among them is six times lower than among Jews and Muslims, despite not using the Jewish method of inbreeding in order to remove half of the deleterious alleles from their gene pool. I know why this is, but I am most interested in your answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

six fingered amish, thats one thing hes talking about

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Of course there is no rate since there is no way to even predict which mutations are lethal. The rate of point mutations is about 2 x 10^-9 per site per year. but that doesn't tell you if the mutation occured in a gene, whether or not it was a lethal recessive etc.. Even knowing what percentage of the genome is actually genes doesn't help since you simply cannot predict which mutations will be lethal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

So, Hitler was Jewish, therefore he must have had a circumcised penis, which is why he was so CRAZY! 

It all makes so much sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

No, because I do not have a circumcised penis  . I bask in my glorious feminine superiority: I am so far removed from these ridiculous penile notions.