Ah okay, I see the mistake. The rate of fixation of neutral mutations should be equal to the rate of occurrence of neutral mutations. There, fixed.
A small population with all n=22 is a population in which those mutations went to fixation. That’s what evidence of fixation looks like. A population in which essentially all individuals have the mutation(s) of interest. How did it get to that point in the first place if chromosomal fusions cannot rise in frequency due to being overwhelmingly deleterious?
How the individual populations are geographically distributed is irrelevant to the question of whether a mutation went to fixation. Individual species can occupy, or overlap in the same geographical area. That would no less make them distinct populations or species. If/when the populations with significant differences in chromosomes overlap that just means you probably get lots of infertile hybrids if they still mate with each other, which isn’t just doesn’t contradict that individual fusions started to rise in frequency, accumulated, and eventually made carriers with significant numbers reproductively incompatible with those without.
We’re back to Bobertsonian translocations instead of telomere-telomere fusions. And the some therefore all or mostly-fallacy. Yawn.
Yet another irrelevant paper that doesn’t say what you think it says. It doesn’t say individual telomere-telomere fusions are typically strongly deleterious. Neither do the references cited in the discussion you quote.
What’s that, the 6th paper you’ve introduced in this thread that doesn’t substantiate a claim you’ve made?
No Bill, this is NOT a “fact”. The fact is that the “various Venn diagrams” you vacuously cite provide so little information that in all probability nearly any populations genetics model would be compatible with them.
What you really mean is:
This is true Rum but it does not help the fact that I can assert, without any evidence whatsoever, that there is no model that supports the various Venn diagrams.
More than 800 posts, and not only does Bill Cole have no evidence coming within light years of casting doubt on whether deer share a common ancestor, he has provided no evidence that he has any understanding whatsoever of what common descent is, or what it’s implications are.
All that this has proved is Bill’s undying fideism to the ID cause, in its most scientifically-vacuous, lowest-common-denominator, reality-denying form.
I have never claimed that all chromosomal mutations are neutral. They don’t need to be for a small handful to go to fixation in the span of a few million years.
Your papers deal almost exclusively with Robertsonian translocations, and almost never with telomere-telomere fusions.
Almost all deal with the fertility of hybrids formed between lineges that have already substantially diverged in chromosomal structure, mostly by Robertsonian translocations, instead of single telomere-telomere fusions arising in the same population.
In conclusion: Your papers don’t show what you claim they show, and are mostly irrelevant to the matter at hand (the arising and fixation of single telomere-telomere fusions). Once again, I’m the only one who have brought a paper that is directly relevant to the matter of hand. The engineering of telomere-telomere fusions in mice to assess their phenotypic effects.
Look above, Bill. It is implicitly understood that I am talking about neutral mutations. I am not saying all mutations that occur are neutral.
The next sentence is after the bolded bit is “…which would be equal to the rate of occurrence in a population of constant size.”
The rate of occurrence is meant to refer to the rate of occurrence of neutral mutations.
I even go on to state that the mutations of interest (here meaning telomere-telomere fusions) are mostly neutral. “So for chromosomal fusions (which we know empirically are mostly neutral)…”
I don’t claim even telomere-telomere fusions are all neutral.
So the statement would be "you just take the rate at which they [neutral chromosomal mutations] occur and then the mean rate of fixation is the mean rate of occurrence [of neutral chromosomal mutations] (there would be some variation around the mean of course)."
And since we’re talking almost entirely about telomere-telomere fusions, it’s true empirically they’re mostly neutral.
Then generate a model that supports this claim. The problem is these mutations get in the way of efficient reproduction. This needs to be quantified. One paper discussed how chromosome mismatch in breeding populations impedes population growth.
They show evidence that chromosome mutations are strongly deleterious. 6 papers all show chromosome mutations affect reproduction. This indicates chromosome matching is an important part of the reproductive process.
Then generate a model that supports this claim. You’re the one who thinks a small handful of single telomere-telomere fusions going to fixation in a few million years is a problem. This needs to be quantified.
None of your papers deal with the scenario relevant to the common ancestry of deer.
Bill you can’t just ignore the number and type of mutations. Your papers deal with them in hybrids that come together with large numbers of chromosomal differences, of which none are telomere-telomere fusions.
It clearly matters whether there is just one, or many chromosomal mutations simultaneously, when it comes to accurate pairing and alignment of chromosomes during meiotic recombination. It also clearly matters whether the mutations existing in one set has created unbalanced chromosomes that can’t be properly aligned to their homologous partners without one chromosome expanding, or genetic material being lost.
These problems generally don’t occur for telomere-telomere fusions, as the homologous singular, smaller chromosomes still can accurately align to the corresponding region on the larger fused one.
If you actually think about what happens, mechanically and physically, you should be able to see why the numbers and types matter for diverged hybrids, in a way a single mutation arising in an existing population is much less likely to cause problems at a similar level. That, however, requires you think.
So no, your papers don’t show that single telomere-telomere fusions arising in a population would have any issue going to fixation. That’s why I said:
I am saying it is an empty claim at this point and quantifying the deleterious nature of chromosomal mutations is required for feasibility. Take a look (original post) at the amount of different fission, fusion and Robertsonian translocations that are required to reconcile the common ancestry of deer.
If I concede this point for arguments sake you still need Robertson translocations and fissions to reconcile the common ancestry of deer.
An interesting point made in one of the papers is that chromosomal mismatch generates reproductive isolation.
-Are these the aberrations of faulty reproduction?
-Are they intentional design changes that allows for the tremendous diversity of life?
I certainly agree it’s an empty claim that there is any problem because we don’t have any numbers that indicate, even weakly, that there is a problem.
You don’t seem to be able to understand that if you don’t actually do the math, you have no basis for saying there is a problem. You nevertheless being convinced there is a problem is merely a statement about your state of mind, then. It is not an indication that any problem exists.
Hi Rum
Your math to demonstrate the “few million years claim” requires unrealistic assumptions especially that mutations are neutral. This is the same problem Lynch has with his model. Deleterious mutations are real as you have acknowledged.
Your assumption is contradicted in the papers I cited. These chromosome mutations can impede reproduction which is directly related to fitness.
The problem has never been about “doing the Math”. The problem is agreeing on the assumptions that the mathematical models are based on.
Surely you must have meant that the majority or a large fraction of telomere-telomere fusions are neutral, is (to your baseless and deliberately obtuse opinion) an unrealistic assumption.
But can you be so blasted you think there are no neutral chromosomal fusions? Surely not.
Once again, none of your papers have shown what you thought they did. Now you are just back to being in blanket denial. Get help.
That’s only true in the sense that you’ve never even tried to do it.
That’s also true but that’s because you keep bringing the wrong references that don’t deal with the actual scenario: The arisal of single telomere-telomere fusions in a population. I have already given a paper that shows these typically have no measurable effect.
You keep bringing papers that deal with all sorts of other chromosomal alterations, in large numbers, having effects on the fertility of hybrids between considerably diverged populations. Which just is not relevant to the divergence of deer species fixing telomeric fusions over millions of years.
This just isn’t and never will be the same thing. Can you understand this? They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing.
What data do you have that supports the claim that telomere-telomere fusions are neutral?
Again you need more than these type of chromosome mutations to make the case for the chromosome arrangements in dear species being the result of reproductive mutations.
Conclusions
We present here new chromosome-scale assemblies of two muntjac deer that differ dramatically in karyotype, despite only limited sequence change, after ∼4.9 million years of divergence. Analysis of these new assemblies revealed multiple changes in the underlying chromosome structure, including variation in the A/B compartments despite maintenance of local (i.e., sub-megabase) three-dimensional genome contacts. One of the chromosome fusions reverses an earlier chromosome fission to the resolution of our assemblies, with the two events being separated by more than eight million years. Several chromosome maintenance associated proteins show accelerated evolution in M. muntjak, although functional studies will be required to determine any possible causal link to rapid karyotype change. Future studies will use these assemblies to resolve the nature of the fusion sites and to better understand the biological mechanisms related to chromosome fissions and fusions in muntjac
21 tandem fusions
5 Robertsonian fusions
1 fission
All in 4.9 million years based on the single origin hypothesis.
Perhaps I’m missing your point out of my own ignorance on the subject. What are you saying? Are these numbers implausible in your opinion? How come? What, in your estimation, would be more plausible ones? Please, provide some, if crude, calculation, that illustrates why exactly your estimates are more plausible than what the consensus says the data shows.
Hi Gisteron
I don’t think there exists any model of how chromosomes can change in a population independent of inferring common descent. There is not enough empirical data at this point to make a viable model. In the paper the inference comes from the hypothesis of common descent of all mammals which is an average of .4 chromosome changes per million years. Note that chimps have no changes in 6 million years and rats and mice have 2 changes in 30 million years based on the common descent inference.
What ever you want to make of the observation it is an order of magnitude greater than the average in mammals. On what basis would something like this be predicted from the single point origin of hypothesis?
Neutral theory counts on a consistent molecular clock for its predictions. We don’t have this for what we are observing from the chromosome differences.
With a separate origin model (deer/mammals) all these complications go away.
That’s because a separate origin model is where nothing is actually explained in any more detail than “it was made to be so” and because you demand no actual test or model of it. There isn’t a hypothesis of separate origins that predicts or demands deer of a particular species should have some particular number or arrangement of chromosomes compared to another.
Ehh, no. Neutral theory just says the majority of the changes that accumulate in a linage over time, in species with small effective population sizes (and, typically, large genomes) are effectively neutral and owe their fixation to genetic drift. It doesn’t say mutation rates are constant.
