GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-09 > 1188799546


From: <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] genetic drift
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 02:05:46 -0400
References: <ca5.17e1ed33.3409fa2f@aol.com><000d01c7ec7b$babc8cc0$6401a8c0@HP><000901c7ec9e$cefca440$6400a8c0@Ken1><000601c7ed61$2d6b3600$6401a8c0@HP><004501c7ed84$9d925f30$6400a8c0@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <004501c7ed84$9d925f30$6400a8c0@Ken1>


"Genetic drift" applies only to small populations and neutral mutations. If a
mutation has a selectic advantage or disadvantage, "drift" doesn't apply, nor
does it apply in a large population. It also doesn't apply to STRs. I'm sorry,
but don't see the relevance of your question to the subject of genetic drift.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Ken Nordtvedt
> Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 1:14 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] genetic drift
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <>
>
> >> And new alleles are being produced by mutations. It's a bit more
> >> complicated.
> >
> > Yes, of course there are new mutations, but they're rare, especially in
small
> > populations, so unless there is a selective advantage to them, their low
> > frequency makes them likely to be lost.
>
> If those poor mutations don't have a chance, why is it that modern man's
> ydna haplotypes, in spite of the high extinction rates that prevailed
> through most of his history, have greater variance or ASD then they did
> 100,000 years ago? That's a rhetorical question: I believe I know the
> reason.
>
>
>

This thread: