gene flow or no flow????

arginine1 said:

Alright... so destroyer bio question # 51....

the solution states that "no isolation" is one of the hardy-weinberg assumptions.

Cliff's says that "population must be isolated (no gene flow)"

Cambell bio also says "no gene flow"

Why can't the sources agree on things?!?!? As if studying all this isn't a trip already...😡

So is gene flow or no gene flow an assumption for hardy-weinberg???

Click to expand...

the definition of gene flow and isolation is the cause of the discrepancy. Campbell states that a population must not have any significant gene flow. That is, gene frequencies do not vary significantly from one generation to the next (through bottlenecking, immigration, emigration, etc). Cliff's also says this and extends that by saying the population must be isolated (no immigration or emigration that will cause a change in gene frequencies of the population).

Destroyer implies that there cannot be individual isolation, meaning random mating is good. No inbreeding, selective mating, etc. It does not mean the population to which the individuals belong must not be isolated.

All three sources are right. Cliff's and Destroyer just refer to two different kinds of "isolation" No gene flow in/out of the population and no genetic drift within the population itself are assumptions of the Hardy-Weinberg equation