Talk:Genetic drift
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology. |
Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4
See also: Talk:Evolution/Genetic drift
Contents |
[edit] Some points
1. Need to point out Anglo-American feud (Sewall Wright v Ronald Fisher and E.B. Ford)over the relative merits of selection and drift. See scarlet tiger moths for link to Fisher Ford 1950 paper. This probably needs its own page. I think that drift is relatively unimportant at levels that matter, though it is important at the molecular level. Simulations show this. Wright had some awfully wacky ideas about the goodness of molecules, when selfish genes are the real cause.
2. Need some maths.
probablity of fixation over an infinite time equals allele frequency. Time to fixation... I'm not sure the introduction is expressed as well as it could be either.
Idea of drift can be used by picking cubes out of a bag. Pick two cubes at a time, for loci. and adjust allele frequency.
(references Wright 1931/8) or is that F-statistics? Duncharris 11:36, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Needs a simplified explanation
There needs to be a simplified explanation for what genetic drift is, in addition to the specifics given in this topic. It appears that genetic drift occurs through neutral mutations that aren't selected against (or for)? I wouldn't know, because the article starts with what genetic drift does, "change the characteristics of species over time," but never explains what is actual is. Then the article explains how the process happens... but again you don't explain what the process is. What is it? I feel that the answer is probably in the article but contained within the more complicated sections. This sections shouldn't be removed by a more simple explanation should be included in the introductory section.
- What do you think of the expanded version I just put in? --FOo 00:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think this does well to clarify the topic for those not already familiar with the process. thanks.
[edit] Example needed
There needs to be a simple example in this article. I don't think anything too elaborate is necessary—no charts or graphs—but perhaps someone could write a narrative example based on a particular named animal and some non-vital traits it has which have varied with genetic drift. —Psychonaut 16:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Two or three examples would really help. Maybe one in humans and a couple from other species. Is hair color in humans an example of genetic drift? -Jeff Worthington 00:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merging
Suggesting mutation rate be merged with this. I am not a genetics expert though and if such a merge is based on flawed logic, say so. It appears that this article has no links to "mutation rate" and that article has no links to here, so probably they were written in isolation. To me they seem like the same thing except that genetic drift is like a "rate of mutation rate". Anyway, the concepts are so closely related it should be all in one article I think. What do you think? Donama 06:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. They are only remotely related topics and books have been written on both subjects. Both are big enough to not only warrant their own page, but eventually to be split into subpages. --Aranae 07:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. You misunderstand. Genetic drift is a change in allele frequency. Genetic drift happens AFTER a mutation. They are completely separate and different processes - in fact, they are two of the four microevolutionary forces, where the other ones are selection and migration (aka gene flow). This alone should justify them having separate articles. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. They are not the same. The effects are quite different, as well. The reason you don't see mutation mentioned in drift is that the process is generally quite fast, and there are few individuals in the population, so the chance of mutation occurring is very small. There are possible candidates for merge, but this isn't one of them.Ted 13:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - as Samsara said, they are quite different things. Guettarda 13:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not the same thing. -PhDP 21:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, we'll leave it then. — Donama 22:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Still too technical
I'm a college graduate, and the intro is two technical. I would think that genetic drift could be explained without words like "Allele" and "stochastic". The rest of the article can be technical, but the introduction needs to be mostly free of science words.
