home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!pender.ee.upenn.edu!rowe
- From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
- Newsgroups: talk.origins
- Subject: Population pinches (was Re: does the bible imply evolution?)
- Message-ID: <106244@netnews.upenn.edu>
- Date: 22 Jan 93 21:03:33 GMT
- References: <727339410@sheol.UUCP> <1jn32jINN94i@dmsoproto.ida.org>
- Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
- Organization: University of Pennsylvania
- Lines: 28
- Nntp-Posting-Host: pender.ee.upenn.edu
-
- In article <1jn32jINN94i@dmsoproto.ida.org> rlg@omni
- (Randy garrett) writes:
-
- >Could you explain, or point to references that explain,
- >more about the connections between genetic variations
- >that exist within a specie[s] today and population
- >pinch points that occurred within the past.
-
- So far as I can tell, one of the principle measurements of how much
- genetic variation exists in a species is the measurement of the number
- of loci at which an individual of the species is heterozygous. For D.
- melanogaster, the number is around 12%. For H. sapiens the number is
- around 6%. In E. coli (the current winner) the number is around 47%.
- The heterozygosity of the cheetah, polar bear and elephant seal are
- all "practically nil". My source for these statements is:
-
- Ohta, T. (1992). "The Nearly Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution",
- 23:263-286.
-
- Ohta cites a different reference for every organism above, but I suspect
- that the source you'd be most interested in is:
-
- O'Brien, S.J., Wildt, D.E., and Bush, M. (1986). "The Cheetah in
- Genetic Peril", Scientific American, 254(5):68-76.
-
- >Randy G.
-
- Mickey Rowe (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
-