Text 1287, 140 rader
Skriven 2005-01-01 06:01:00 av Ekurtz99 (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: What is R (relatednes
=================================


"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:cr4gkm$2kfl$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>> "John Edser" <edser@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:cquoj9$ue7$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>> >
>> >
>> > "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> JE:_
>> > >> [snip]
>> > >> Within Hamilton's Rule rb has all the
>> > >> "inherited" but (Fisher) defined "non heritable"
>> > >> epistatic information deleted within rb
>> > >> whereas c includes ALL of it.
>> > >> [snip]
>> >
>> > >JM:-
>> > >I don't see this at all.  John, could you explain what you mean
>> > >by "epistatic information", how it can be inherited, and how "c"
>> > >has it but "rb" does not.
>> >
>> > JE:-
>> > Epistatic information is the information
>> > produced via parental genomic gene associations.
>> > Epistasis requires a minimum of two parental
>> > loci. In Hamilton's Rule c represents the cost
>> > of b in normal, i.e. Darwinian fertile
>> > organism units. Therefore all the heritable
>> > epistatic information that is possible
>> > using sex where n loci are inherited
>> > after a meiotic reduction of 2n loci
>> > must be contained within the cost c.
>> > However Hamilton's competitor rb, only
>> > refers to just the one locus. It ignores
>> > all the others by definition. Thus all
>> > epistatic information that is heritable
>> > via n parental genomic loci has been
>> > deleted by definition within Hamilton's
>> > rb. Thus rb cannot be validly compared
>> > to c within any science of biology.
>>
>> OK, I think I see what you are getting at (for the first
>> time!).  But let me try to put your argument into my
>> own words, just to see if I understand it.
>
> I've come to learn that it is a mistake to assume
> anything John says actually makes rational sense.
>
>> Epistatic information exists.
>
> Uh, okay.  I'd say this is a pretty conservative
> proposition.  Nobody disputes this.
>
>> Its heritability in a
>> sexual population is limited (as compared, say, to
>> its heritability in an asexual haploid population)
>> but it is NOT ZERO.
>
> I don't quite understand what this statement means.
> It has the ring of typical Edserian nonsense.  What
> units might you employ to enumerate heritability?
>
>> Since "c" (and "b") are defined
>> to be hypothetical decrements (or increments) to ordinary
>> organism-level fitnesses, which are in units of fertile
>> organisms produced, there is a sense in which "c"
>> can be said to contain epistatic information - the
>> hypothetical fertile organisms represented by "c"
>> would have contained the heritable portion of the
>> donor's epistatic information, if the donor had not
>> been foolish enough to donate.
>
> I can't make any sense at all of this sentence.
> I think I followed it up until the phrase,
> " . . . there is a sense in which "c" can be
> said to contain epistatic information."
>
>> However, the situation with "b" is not symmetric!
>
> In comparison to what?
>
>> Yes, "b" does represent hypothetical fertile organisms
>> just as "c" does.
>
> Uh, okay.  What's your point?
>
>> But these organisms are children of
>> the recipient, not children of the donor.
>
> Relevance?
>
>> It may
>> be the case that "r" is the proper dilution factor for
>> determining how many of the donor's single genes end up
>> in the recipient's children,
>
> What do you mean, "It may be . . .?"  Is it or
> is it not and what is a "dilution factor," and
> why do you (or John) think it's necessary?
>
>> but it is not the proper
>> dilution factor for determining how much of the donor's
>> epistatic information ends up in the recipient's children.
>
> I can't make sense of this statement.  Is there
> such thing as non-epistatic information.  If not
> then why are you drawing a distinction?  If so
> then how do you quantify it?
>
>> For that, we would need to use "r" raised to some power!
>
> IOW, IBD is inadequate, at best.
>
>> Is this what you are trying to say, John?
>
> As I believe you will soon realize (again) it's
> presumptuous of you to assume that John comprehends
> what he is saying.

What  he is trying to do in his confused way is to construct a model of 
diploid inheritance that demonstrates the failure of Hamilton's rule to 
explain the evolution of altruism in those cases (most or all by assumption) 
where the altruistic impulse is a consequence of specific allelic variations 
at *multiple* loci. To do this properly requires an understanding  of 
mathematics, particularly probability theory, and of linkage and 
recombination, all of which he lacks. So he does the best he can with words, 
generating the by now over-familiar confusion. It doesn't help that he 
starts with an obviously flawed notion of ordinary fitness ("units of 
fertile organisms produced").
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/1/05 6:01:04 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)