I wrote:
>>This seems a challenge to a rather fundamental point. Can someone explain
>>in non-mathematical terms why an advantageous mutation could not spread
>>within a population? Given of course, that it is not hopelessly linked with
>>disadvantageous genes.
>Put simply, "Hardy Weinberg makes evolution impossible."
This is like explaining relativity in non-mathematical terms by saying
'It's Einsteinian!' I think people on this list have become inured to the
tactic of throwing names around.
>Unless the selective advantage of a trait is nearly perfect, a condition
>that is unattainable by definition, it will not become fixed in the
population.
And why not? Hardy-Weinberg!
>Only dominant traits that have a sufficiently high positive effect can
>become fixed by Hardy Weinberg pathways.
There must be some other pathways then, for recessive traits from blue
eyes to sickle cell seem well established.
>Of course, one can always posit that the whole population, except for the
>one individual was annihilated, and that one individual (or small related
>population) survived, and thus raised the frequency to 100%....
I thought I might learn something by asking for a clarification. Well, I
learned not to ask.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com