Re: Hamilton's Nonsense
From: Peter F (fell_spamtrap_in_at_ozemail.com.au)
Date: 12/28/04
- Next message: Peter F: "Twin-research results and the "histone code""
- Previous message: Anthony Cerrato: "Re: Evolution and other planets"
- In reply to: Jim McGinn: "Hamilton's Nonsense"
- Next in thread: Tim Tyler: "Re: Hamilton's Nonsense"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 06:26:23 +0000 (UTC)
"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cqpc5l$25l5$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> > "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > [snip]
> > > Does IBD actually measure relatedness
> > > or is it, as I indicate, a vague abstraction that
> > > is only peripherally indicative of relatedness?
> > > [snip]
> >
> > This question seems to be at the heart of your misunderstanding,
> > so I will try to address it.
> >
> > Short answer:
> > What "really" matters is how frequently the recipient of altruism
> > carries the gene for altruism, as compared to non-recipients.
>
> There is no one gene for altruism. As with any and all
> traits/behaviors there are many genes that determine their phenotype.
> All members of any population will share over 99% of an such genes.
> Consequently this notion that there is one gene for altruism is an
> idiotic notion that has nothing to do with biological reality.
Hi Jim,
As you know I am an excEPTional expert *only*. ;-)
Therefore please be cautious about this my
enthusiastic recommendation to pay a visit to
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/ghr/glossary/dnabase
To me it seems to contain a really concise
and to me easy to digest explanation
of basic genetics facts and principles.
I agree with you that it is normally impossible for people to always know what they are talking about when they use the term "gene";
And especially if used in reference to a complex trait or a generally
and vaguely grouped set of phenotypic characteristics;
Such as speculations to do with: what it is about our "genes" that allows and is required for any (or all) aspect of human culture.
However, when someone says "a gene for" some trait (physical or psychological feature or tendency of one kind and degree of complexity, or another), it is possible that the person loosely
refers to is "a once (or twice or more times) occurred genetic (or epigenetic) mutation with a *key catalyzing* effect (mutations that might be almost any of those types listed or mentioned on the website above.
(I liked that website because I felt it might miraculously make it possible for me to learn something. :->)
As ignorant as I am, I can still (or perhaps therefore) imagine that a small heritable change in a sequence of DNA (or even some small heritable change to do with chromatin;) might be able to cause, or as if be a catalyst for, a significant synergistically phenotyping effect (an effect that of course would involve a prerequisite presence of a great many pre-evolved genetic, chromosomal, and cellular features).
It might be such a change (except of course a hypothetical change in the "histone code" ;->) that people refer to when they use
the expression "gene for [this or that]". :-)
[I guess I have also been trying to express that: a
vastly complex electrochemically coordinated synergistic combination
of not just heritable and naturally selectable 'bits of phenotype-building
recipe' (some of which would have to be some of the most recently
mutationally arrived 'bits' of key-catalyzing significance) is part of what is going on to make us how we are.%-}]
P
- Next message: Peter F: "Twin-research results and the "histone code""
- Previous message: Anthony Cerrato: "Re: Evolution and other planets"
- In reply to: Jim McGinn: "Hamilton's Nonsense"
- Next in thread: Tim Tyler: "Re: Hamilton's Nonsense"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
