Re: 2nd law clarifications

Liste des GroupesRevenir à t origins 
Sujet : Re: 2nd law clarifications
De : {$to$} (at) *nospam* meden.demon.co.uk (Ernest Major)
Groupes : talk.origins
Date : 03. Jan 2025, 17:05:49
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vl91ss$3v697$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 03/01/2025 13:08, MarkE wrote:
 Wrong. Near-neutral (i.e. mildly detrimental changes) by definition have a very low selection co-efficient and therefore typically will not be removed by selection.
As an allele approaches a selection coefficient of zero the chance of fixation (and therefore also elimination) approaches 50%. The chance of a mildly detrimental change being removed (by the combination of drift and selection) remains greater than 0.5.
If you want to consider genetic drift acting alone, you have to not only eliminate natural selection, but also mutation and other sources of variation. In this case a population will evolve to eliminate genetic variation and then enter stasis.
--
alias Ernest Major

Date Sujet#  Auteur
2 Jan 25 * 2nd law clarifications40MarkE
2 Jan 25 +- Re: 2nd law clarifications1MarkE
2 Jan 25 +- Re: 2nd law clarifications1MarkE
2 Jan 25 +- Re: 2nd law clarifications1MarkE
2 Jan 25 +* Re: 2nd law clarifications3RonO
3 Jan 25 i`* Re: 2nd law clarifications2MarkE
3 Jan 25 i `- Re: 2nd law clarifications1RonO
2 Jan 25 +- Re: 2nd law clarifications1erik simpson
2 Jan 25 +* Re: 2nd law clarifications22Ernest Major
2 Jan 25 i+- Re: 2nd law clarifications1RonO
3 Jan 25 i`* Re: 2nd law clarifications20MarkE
3 Jan 25 i +* Re: 2nd law clarifications6Kerr-Mudd, John
3 Jan 25 i i`* Re: 2nd law clarifications5MarkE
3 Jan 25 i i +- Re: 2nd law clarifications1MarkE
3 Jan 25 i i +* Re: 2nd law clarifications2Ernest Major
4 Jan 25 i i i`- Re: 2nd law clarifications1MarkE
7 Feb 25 i i `- Re: 2nd law clarifications1Kerr-Mudd, John
3 Jan 25 i +* Re: 2nd law clarifications6Rufus Ruffian
4 Jan 25 i i`* Re: 2nd law clarifications5MarkE
4 Jan 25 i i +* Re: 2nd law clarifications2Rufus Ruffian
5 Jan 25 i i i`- Re: 2nd law clarifications1MarkE
4 Jan 25 i i `* Re: 2nd law clarifications2DB Cates
5 Jan 25 i i  `- Re: 2nd law clarifications1MarkE
3 Jan 25 i +- Re: 2nd law clarifications1Ernest Major
3 Jan 25 i `* Re: 2nd law clarifications6RonO
4 Jan 25 i  +- Re: 2nd law clarifications1jillery
8 Mar 25 i  `* Re: 2nd law clarifications4Kerr-Mudd, John
9 Mar 25 i   `* Re: 2nd law clarifications3MarkE
10 Mar 25 i    +- Re: 2nd law clarifications1Kerr-Mudd, John
10 Mar 25 i    `- Re: 2nd law clarifications1LDagget
3 Jan 25 +* Re: 2nd law clarifications3aph
4 Jan 25 i`* Re: 2nd law clarifications2MarkE
5 Jan 25 i `- Re: 2nd law clarifications1aph
5 Jan 25 `* Re: 2nd law clarifications7LDagget
7 Jan 25  `* Re: 2nd law clarifications6MarkE
7 Jan 25   `* Re: 2nd law clarifications5LDagget
10 Jan 25    `* Re: 2nd law clarifications4MarkE
10 Jan 25     `* Re: 2nd law clarifications3Ernest Major
10 Jan 25      `* Re: 2nd law clarifications2LDagget
11 Jan 25       `- Re: 2nd law clarifications1Bob Casanova

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal