Guy Hoelzer escribió en mensaje <76ecbl$243 at net.bio.net>...
>In article <76ds4o$3q2 at net.bio.net>, Jose Mª Muiño <jmaria at teleline.es>
wrote:
>>Ludvig Mörtberg escribió en mensaje <7604h0$7d9 at net.bio.net>...
>>Does population size affect the speed with which the clock ticks?
>>Assume that the mutations are neutral and must be fixed or lost in a
>>population through genetic drift. Any clues? I read a genetics book
>>about this but couldn't figure it out.
>>It is a fundamental principle of the neutral theory of molecular evolution
>that there is no relation between population size and clock rate. The
>reasoning is as follows: larger populations experience more neutral
>mutations, but each neutral mutation has a smaller probability of ultimate
>fixation. These two effects of population size exactly cancel eachother
>out, so the rate of substitution for neutral mutations (i.e. the clock
>rate) is not affected by population size at all
Yes, it is. But:
Ayala proved that the variability affect the speed of evolution, no?
If we have a high speed of evolution we´ll have a high variability, no?
If we have a high variability we´ll have a high heterozygosity (H), no?
if we have a high heterozygosity (H) we´ll have a high Ne, no?
Which is the problem?
larger populations experience more neutral
mutations (2NeV), but each neutral mutation has a smaller probability of
ultimate
fixation (1/2Ne). Yes, but if Ne is very high some mutations can be the
same, and this 2NeV news mutations are less (i.e: 2NeV-x, where x are
mutations not news). Then K isn´t the same than V, isn´t it?
