Xref: utzoo sci.research:618 talk.politics.misc:21372 sci.bio:1811
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!unm-la!lanl!beta!dd
From: dd@beta.lanl.gov (Dan Davison)
Newsgroups: sci.research,talk.politics.misc,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Gene Pool
Summary: work it out yourself...
Message-ID: <23378@beta.lanl.gov>
Date: 3 Feb 89 05:19:48 GMT
References: <674@intvax.UUCP> <1252@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG> <1254@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG> <10120@ut-emx.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 24

In article <10120@ut-emx.UUCP>, ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes:
> [...]
> How fast this affects the gene pool adversely depends to some 
> extent on the rate at which such mutations appear. [...]
> I'm personally not very worried about our gene pool. [...]

Quite right.  I recall that in my freshman biology course ('73)
we were offered the chance to figure this out.  With a "deleterious"
gene present in a population at a specific frequency (less than 20% but
greater than 5%, as I recall), how long would it take for that gene
to go to fixation ("permanently") part of the population.  I don't
recall the rest of the details. Those worried about "contamination"
of the gene pool are cordially invited to go to their local library
look it up, and calculate it.  

The upshot was that the gene's frequency never went above 20%.

Ted or Henry may have more current data, but the last three times
I got interested in the subject and did the calculations I found
that there was basically nothing to worry about.

dan davison/theoretical biology/t-10 ms k710/los alamos national laboratory
los alamos, nm 875545/dd@lanl.gov (arpa)/dd@lanl.uucp(new)/..cmcl2!lanl!dd
"[...] Nature cannot be fooled" R. Feynmann, Challenger report