Walter wrote:
>>Precisely. Glenn has persistently failed to document this key point. He
merely ASSUMED that alleles typically differ by 6 nucleotides. Here is Glenn
assuming it again:
This is the rest of my post.
>The number 6 has been banded around but it may be that there needs
>to be more than 6 and this process must be able to account for all 59
>MHC alleles.
Walter, do you actually read what anyone else writes? I went over this 6
business yesterday. Nowhere did I say that.
You are missing a very important point also. Not all DNA mutations give rise
to a change in the protein. Not all changes in the protein alter the
function of that protein. Thus, due to the fact that lots of mutations have
no phenotypic effect, the time necessary for the generation of new alleles
is even longer than I calculated.
I was not going to respond to a question you asked earlier cause I thought I
didn't want to become ungentlemanly, but since you seem to be ignoring every
thing anyone else says, Let's do it your way.
I wrote:
>I think Steve [Clark] already passed judgment on
>your calculation of the rise of genetic diversity.
You replied:
>>I have no idea what Glenn is talking about there.
Why don't you look in the August archives for a note posted on 8-20-95
entitled, Rapid Genetic Variation. It ought to refresh your memory somewhat.
I really do not want to have to quote that post to you. If what that post
said had been said about me, I would be quite embarrassed and I would not
forget such a thing! While we all make mistakes and commit errors, like I
did yesterday with the haploid screw up, the best policy is to admit it and
move on. Your genetic calculation will not work and is based upon a faulty
view of alleles.
glenn