Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby_H
You are stating that the criteria of my example is a problem. I admit if you choose to ignore the criteria of my example you will get a different result.
|
No your understanding of why it doesn’t matter is a problem
Your position has been that maintaining allele frequencies is impossible as frogs with certain phenotypes that would not survive to reproduce in the wild will do so in captivity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby_H
Are you suggesting that there is absolutely no possibility of anything being lethal in wild population and not lethal in captive populations?
|
No and that has not been the focus of your argument to my recollection… your position was that phenotypes that would not survive in the wild are allowed to do so in captivity and thus will skew the genetic representation of the population. Are you attempting to change your position?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby_H
Or are you suggesting that something that is not beneficial is not possible to exist in a wild population. Google “genetic disorder” and to make it even more fun add “list” to that search field.
|
I’m not suggesting that either. As I have repeatedly stated, we cannot know this and as such have to maintain the allele frequency regardless as what is a perceived negative today may be a positive tomorrow.
Contrary to your allusion I have a very strong foundation in genetics between college and what I do for a living…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby_H
The Punnet Square example above does prove my point if my criteria is allowed.
|
No, actually it doesn’t. It doesn’t matter what portion of the population is AA, Aa or aa as long as the ratio of A to a is the same as when the program was started. A punnet’s square only tells you what the ratio of a given cross would be which is immaterial provided the population is kept at the appropriate ratio of A to a. That is where tracking relatedness and representation in a population resolves this issue.
Ed
