Skip to main content
Mod Moved Comments To Chat
added 10 characters in body
Source Link
Devin
  • 39
  • 3

More than thirty thousand synonymous single-nucleotide-substitutions have occurred in protein-coding genes in the human genome since the human lineage diverged from the chimp lineage ~7 million years ago (Bakewell et al, 2007, p.7490). Since, by definition, synonymous substitutions don’t change the amino acid, these substitutions must be selectively neutral mutations. For neutral mutations, the rate of evolution is simply equal to the point mutation rate U, “irrespective of selection at other linked loci, changes in population size, or almost any other conceivable complication” (Lanfear et al, 2014, p.36). This is problematic because U is approximately 10 to the -8 power for humans, which means that it took about a hundred million generations for each of these substitutions to become fixed in the human genome. Since each generation is more than ten years, a hundred million generations is more than a billion years, which is much longer than the ~7 million years since the human lineage diverged from the chimp lineage. How is this to be reconciled?

Bakewell, M. et al, “More genes underwent positive selection in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, vol 104, pages 7489–7494, 2007

Lanfear, R. et al, “Population size and the rate of evolution.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol 29, pages 33–40, 2014

More than thirty thousand synonymous single-nucleotide-substitutions have occurred in protein-coding genes in the human genome since the human lineage diverged from the chimp lineage ~7 million years ago (Bakewell et al, 2007, p.7490). Since, by definition, synonymous substitutions don’t change the amino acid, these substitutions must be selectively neutral mutations. For neutral mutations, the rate of evolution is simply equal to the point mutation rate U, “irrespective of selection at other linked loci, changes in population size, or almost any other conceivable complication” (Lanfear et al, 2014, p.36). This is problematic because U is approximately 10 to the -8 power for humans, which means that it took about a hundred million generations for each of these substitutions to become fixed in the human genome. Since each generation is more than ten years, a hundred million generations is a billion years, which is much longer than the ~7 million years since the human lineage diverged from the chimp lineage. How is this to be reconciled?

Bakewell, M. et al, “More genes underwent positive selection in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, vol 104, pages 7489–7494, 2007

Lanfear, R. et al, “Population size and the rate of evolution.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol 29, pages 33–40, 2014

More than thirty thousand synonymous single-nucleotide-substitutions have occurred in protein-coding genes in the human genome since the human lineage diverged from the chimp lineage ~7 million years ago (Bakewell et al, 2007, p.7490). Since, by definition, synonymous substitutions don’t change the amino acid, these substitutions must be selectively neutral mutations. For neutral mutations, the rate of evolution is simply equal to the point mutation rate U, “irrespective of selection at other linked loci, changes in population size, or almost any other conceivable complication” (Lanfear et al, 2014, p.36). This is problematic because U is approximately 10 to the -8 power for humans, which means that it took about a hundred million generations for each of these substitutions to become fixed in the human genome. Since each generation is more than ten years, a hundred million generations is more than a billion years, which is much longer than the ~7 million years since the human lineage diverged from the chimp lineage. How is this to be reconciled?

Bakewell, M. et al, “More genes underwent positive selection in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, vol 104, pages 7489–7494, 2007

Lanfear, R. et al, “Population size and the rate of evolution.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol 29, pages 33–40, 2014

added 73 characters in body; edited title
Source Link
Devin
  • 39
  • 3

how How to resolve the contradiction between the time required for the fixation of neutral mutations and the time available according to the fossil record

More than thirty thousand synonymous single-nucleotide-substitutions have occurred in protein-coding genes in the human genome since the human lineage diverged from the chimp lineage ~7 million years ago (Bakewell et al, 2007, p.7490). Since, by definition, synonymous substitutions don’t change the amino acid, these substitutions must be selectively neutral mutations. For neutral mutations, the rate of evolution is simply equal to the point mutation rate U, “irrespective of selection at other linked loci, changes in population size, or almost any other conceivable complication” (Lanfear et al, 2014, p.36). This is problematic because U is approximately 10 to the -8 power for humans, which means that it took about 108a hundred million generations for each of these substitutions to become fixed in the human genome. Since 108 generationseach generation is more than ten years, a hundred million generations is a billion years, thiswhich is much longer than the ~7 million years since the human lineage diverged from the chimp lineage. How is this to be reconciled?

Bakewell, M. et al, “More genes underwent positive selection in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, vol 104, pages 7489–7494, 2007

Lanfear, R. et al, “Population size and the rate of evolution.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol 29, pages 33–40, 2014

how to resolve the contradiction between the time required for the fixation of neutral mutations and the time available according to the fossil record

More than thirty thousand synonymous single-nucleotide-substitutions have occurred in protein-coding genes in the human genome since the human lineage diverged from the chimp lineage ~7 million years ago (Bakewell et al, 2007, p.7490). Since, by definition, synonymous substitutions don’t change the amino acid, these substitutions must be selectively neutral mutations. For neutral mutations, the rate of evolution is simply equal to the point mutation rate U, “irrespective of selection at other linked loci, changes in population size, or almost any other conceivable complication” (Lanfear et al, 2014, p.36). This is problematic because U is approximately 10-8 for humans, which means that it took about 108 generations for each of these substitutions to become fixed in the human genome. Since 108 generations is more than a billion years, this is much longer than the ~7 million years since the human lineage diverged from the chimp lineage. How is this to be reconciled?

Bakewell, M. et al, “More genes underwent positive selection in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, vol 104, pages 7489–7494, 2007

Lanfear, R. et al, “Population size and the rate of evolution.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol 29, pages 33–40, 2014

How to resolve the contradiction between the time required for the fixation of neutral mutations and the time available according to the fossil record

More than thirty thousand synonymous single-nucleotide-substitutions have occurred in protein-coding genes in the human genome since the human lineage diverged from the chimp lineage ~7 million years ago (Bakewell et al, 2007, p.7490). Since, by definition, synonymous substitutions don’t change the amino acid, these substitutions must be selectively neutral mutations. For neutral mutations, the rate of evolution is simply equal to the point mutation rate U, “irrespective of selection at other linked loci, changes in population size, or almost any other conceivable complication” (Lanfear et al, 2014, p.36). This is problematic because U is approximately 10 to the -8 power for humans, which means that it took about a hundred million generations for each of these substitutions to become fixed in the human genome. Since each generation is more than ten years, a hundred million generations is a billion years, which is much longer than the ~7 million years since the human lineage diverged from the chimp lineage. How is this to be reconciled?

Bakewell, M. et al, “More genes underwent positive selection in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, vol 104, pages 7489–7494, 2007

Lanfear, R. et al, “Population size and the rate of evolution.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol 29, pages 33–40, 2014

Source Link
Devin
  • 39
  • 3

how to resolve the contradiction between the time required for the fixation of neutral mutations and the time available according to the fossil record

More than thirty thousand synonymous single-nucleotide-substitutions have occurred in protein-coding genes in the human genome since the human lineage diverged from the chimp lineage ~7 million years ago (Bakewell et al, 2007, p.7490). Since, by definition, synonymous substitutions don’t change the amino acid, these substitutions must be selectively neutral mutations. For neutral mutations, the rate of evolution is simply equal to the point mutation rate U, “irrespective of selection at other linked loci, changes in population size, or almost any other conceivable complication” (Lanfear et al, 2014, p.36). This is problematic because U is approximately 10-8 for humans, which means that it took about 108 generations for each of these substitutions to become fixed in the human genome. Since 108 generations is more than a billion years, this is much longer than the ~7 million years since the human lineage diverged from the chimp lineage. How is this to be reconciled?

Bakewell, M. et al, “More genes underwent positive selection in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, vol 104, pages 7489–7494, 2007

Lanfear, R. et al, “Population size and the rate of evolution.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol 29, pages 33–40, 2014