Re: Holowness of SBE
From: Perplexed in Peoria (jimmenegay_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 12/07/04
- Next message: John Edser: "Re: The "fuel" of evolution"
- Previous message: John Edser: "Re: John's New Venue"
- In reply to: John Edser: "Re: Holowness of SBE"
- Next in thread: Name And Address Supplied: "Re: Holowness of SBE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 21:25:31 +0000 (UTC)
"John Edser" <edser@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:cp3d4b$227e$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
>
> "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net>
> > JM:-
> > Correlation between being a recipient and being a relative.
[snip]
> > > > If there is no correlation,
> > > > then "r" is zero.
>
> > > JMcG:- Uh, you sure about that?
>
> > JM:-
> > Yes. Well, to be more precise, it will be either zero or (-1/N),
> > depending on whether you count yourself as a member of the population
> > for purposes of calculating the correlation.
>
>
> JE:-
> The value r cannot be zero unless life was not decended
> from just one common ancestor.
There are two different versions of "r" being confused here.
What you say is correct for "IBD_r". I was referring to
"regression_r", which can be zero or negative. As Hamilton
makes clear in his later writing, IBD_r is only a useful
approximation to regression_r. It is regression_r that should
be used in Hamilton's rule. For one thing, use of regression_r
in the rule eliminates one annoying assumption - you no longer
have to assume random mating.
However, if you do have something close to random mating, then
the following relationship roughly holds:
regression_r = IBD_r - 1/N
where N is the population size. If the population is large, and
not inbred, then IBD_r is a good enough approximation.
[snip]
> JE:-
> As I recently posted r =0.5 can only exist
> for your own offspring when b applies to
> fitness gains made over to recipients who
> are the offspring of another parent and not
> that other parent which is the case within
> Hamilton's measure of b. Most people entirely confuse
> "Haldane's Rule" with Hamilton's Rule because
> they assume recipients who are not their own
> offspring can be validly related r = 0.5.
> This is only possible within "Haldane's Rule"
> where the beneficiary is the other parent and
> _not_ the offspring of that other parent (one
> entire generation difference). Refer to almost
> any "authority" at random and you will see this
> glaring error due to sloppy Neo Darwinistic
> thinking.
John, has anyone ever told you that your writing is not
very clear? I had to read this paragraph six times
before the light finally dawned - at least I think it is
light. Are you saying this? : If I help my brother, and if
my brother and I have not yet achieved sexual maturity,
then the right way to account for this is to say that our
father has helped our mother (and vise versa).
I'm guessing that this is what you are saying, because you
think that immature me is a "fitness zombie" for my father
and my immature sib is a not-yet-realized potential fitness
element for our mother.
Well, I agree, kind-of. But this complication strikes me as yet
one more reason why the "Edserian" definition of fitness is
inferior to the standard one.
- Next message: John Edser: "Re: The "fuel" of evolution"
- Previous message: John Edser: "Re: John's New Venue"
- In reply to: John Edser: "Re: Holowness of SBE"
- Next in thread: Name And Address Supplied: "Re: Holowness of SBE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
