The statement is false. Rates of genetic drift are strongly dependent on population size. Looking at it from a different direction, if you have a bunch of coins, and there are 100/1000 quarters, you have 10% quarters. If you were to take away or add one quarter, you will still have nearly 10% quarters. However, if you have a smaller amount of coins, and there are 1/10 quarters, adding or removing one quarter will significantly change the frequency.
This applies to genes as well. If one individual is unlucky enough to be hit by a meteorite, his death will not impact the large population as much as the small population. Since genetic drift is random changes in frequencies of alleles over time, then large populations will be less likely to undergo genetic drift than small populations.
2007-03-28 16:41:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
False. Small populations are more likely to undergo genetic drift than large populations.
2007-03-28 23:20:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by timetraveler7000 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is false but it is important to keep in mind that all populations undergo genetic drift. The influence of genetic drift on a smaller population is stronger than on a large population.
2007-03-29 00:56:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by KD 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
False. Small populations are more likely to undergo genetic drift. :)
2007-03-28 23:14:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by Belle 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
False.
2007-03-28 23:13:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
false
2007-03-28 23:52:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by rara avis 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
True
2007-03-29 00:01:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
actually, it's true
2007-03-28 23:24:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by Bigtima 3
·
0⤊
1⤋