t
|> aren't that important - a mutation will only
|> enter a population's gene
|> pool if it happens in a germ line cell. I would
|> think that this would
|> tend to `speed up' the molecular clocks of organisms with shorter
|> generatioal times, since more generations (ie more gametogenesis &
|> fertilizations) in a given period would allow more mutations to
|> accumulate, since the genes comprising the population's gene pool
|> would have spent a greater proportion of time as gametes.
|>|> I think the idea makes sense but I'm sure that
|> there's a better way of
|> expressing it.
i> I'm not quite sure I understand Hal's idea, but if the significant part
i> of the argument is the proportion of time spent as gametes, surely the
i> mutation rate would be much higher in females of a species than males,
i> since gametogenesis takes place very early in females, while in males,
i> gametogenesis happens close to the time of fertilization.
Whoahhhh.. The female mutation rate would still be only 'expressed' at the
time of fertilization though, wouldn't it? Female gametogenesis does take
place very early however the egg isn't used until much later.
Am i on the right track here?!
Regards from Perth, Western Australia!
James Shotter
