4 ms·

1. Mueller's ratchet is still a hypothesis. A well supported hypothesis, but there are cases that it doesn't yet explain (Bdelloid rotifers, for example). 2. E

1. Mueller's ratchet is still a hypothesis. A well supported hypothesis, but there are cases that it doesn't yet explain (Bdelloid rotifers, for example). 2. Even accepting the premise, it doesn't explain why sexual reproduction should be favored over asexual reproduction with occasional conjugation. 3. Even assuming that this mechanism is sufficient to explain the advantages of sexual reproduction, it still operates over a long time scale (i.e. long enough for enough deleterious mutations to accumulate in the asexual reproducing population). What this comment and the parent (and many of the others in this thread) fail to understand is that no one is debating that sexual reproduction is advantageous over long enough time scales. The question that the authors of the original paper are addressing is how sexual reproduction could be advantageous enough on a short enough time scale sufficient for those organisms to avoid being outcompeted by asexual organisms.

bhickey 11y ago
What this comment fails to understand is that I was explaining mathematical models for sexual reproduction to an audience who might otherwise be unfamiliar with it. Any inference that I was making claims about the relative efficacy of sex is sorely mistaken. Finally, this house would like to remind the honorable gentleman that he is invited to comport himself in a civil manner.
- jballanc 11y ago
  Apologies and much appreciation for the introduction of some interesting, and very much important, models from evolutionary biology. I fear my tone was somewhat poisoned by that of the grandparent comment. Wanting to learn about evolution is fine. Doing so by asserting that certain accepted "truths" might not hold is also perfectly valid (assuming you're willing to accept when you are wrong). Claiming that the entire premise of a course of research, on which numerous scientists with extensive training have worked, is "false" is just filled with the worst sort of hubris.
  - bhickey 11y ago
    No worries. Leaving claims of hubris aside, I think some of the sibling threads are a tad mistaken. For example, population size is a determiner of the rate of neutral drift. I'm trying to work through what are the implications to having more genealogical ancestors than genetic ancestors, but it isn't immediately clear. If you really want your mind blown, check out Art Poon's paper "The Rate of Compensatory Mutation in the DNA Bacteriophage φX174" and Daniel Weinreich's "Darwinian evolution can follow only very few mutational paths to fitter proteins". Both have some amazing evolutionary implications.

bhickey 11y ago

What this comment fails to understand is that I was explaining mathematical models for sexual reproduction to an audience who might otherwise be unfamiliar with it. Any inference that I was making claims about the relative efficacy of sex is sorely mistaken. Finally, this house would like to remind the honorable gentleman that he is invited to comport himself in a civil manner.

jballanc 11y ago
Apologies and much appreciation for the introduction of some interesting, and very much important, models from evolutionary biology. I fear my tone was somewhat poisoned by that of the grandparent comment. Wanting to learn about evolution is fine. Doing so by asserting that certain accepted "truths" might not hold is also perfectly valid (assuming you're willing to accept when you are wrong). Claiming that the entire premise of a course of research, on which numerous scientists with extensive training have worked, is "false" is just filled with the worst sort of hubris.
- bhickey 11y ago
  No worries. Leaving claims of hubris aside, I think some of the sibling threads are a tad mistaken. For example, population size is a determiner of the rate of neutral drift. I'm trying to work through what are the implications to having more genealogical ancestors than genetic ancestors, but it isn't immediately clear. If you really want your mind blown, check out Art Poon's paper "The Rate of Compensatory Mutation in the DNA Bacteriophage φX174" and Daniel Weinreich's "Darwinian evolution can follow only very few mutational paths to fitter proteins". Both have some amazing evolutionary implications.