Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 23:39:20 -0400 (EDT)
> JM:-
> Some, perhaps most, beneficial mutations make the possessor a better
> competitor against conspecifics. In a density dependent model, these
> beneficial mutations will result in a lower population count after
> fixation than before. You might claim that this is not a risk of
> extinction, but then you are not using a density dependent model in
> your own model of a deteriorating environment.
JE:-
Because group selection is firstly subject to selection at the Darwinian
fertile form level the size of a healthy population (a population that
is not moving to extinction) may become reduced.
> JM:-
> I remain agnostic as to whether there is a limit on the rate of
> non-neutral substitution. My intuition tells me that Haldane's
original
> concept of selective deaths is close to correct. Perhaps his only
> mistake was his exclusive focus upon selective *deaths*, when
selective
> *births* may be just as important.
JE:-
Selective births actually require the deaths of infertile immatures
where such an event is only sub selective and not selective. The death
of immatures is more like the sacrifice of a dependent body part, e.g.
the discarding of a lizards tail that can easily be replaced than the
death of an independent organism. The difference is immatures represent
modular body parts only providing an illusion of fitness independence.
The death of infertile fitness dependent immatures is simply nothing
like the same biological event as the death of fitness independent
fertile forms. However, gene centric population genetics does not
distinguish between them because it remains obsessed with heuristic
independent genomic gene fitnesses which are supposed to exist within
infertile reproductives. The don't. All gene fitnesses are empirically
epistatic and therefore fitness dependent, no exceptions. Haldane's
problem was always just an artefact of the oversimplified model he was
misusing. It has taken more than 50 years to prove that his supposed
dilemma was empirically, just a non problem. Yet, the Neo Darwinists
refuse to alter Haldane's basic population genetics equations to include
any epistatic variable such as the one suggested by Waddington. Why do
Neo Darwinist act as if their models need never be subject to empirical
testing? Why haven't Haldane's errors that produced a false dilemma been
examined and corrected forcing a change to his population genetics
equations which remain to this very day based on the HW distribution of
a binomial distribution of just two alleles at one locus?
> JM:-
> ISTM that the limit on the increase
> in the number of selectively favored allele copies in a population is
> simply the number of organisms that have lived during the period in
> question. That is, the "life work" of every organism that lives and
> dies is to increase the count of some favored allele by 1.
JE:-
Typically, you have reversed cause and effect to make the standard gene
centric population genetics model work. The "life work" of every
organism that lives and dies is _not_ to avoid the extinction of a
favoured allele it is to increase the total number of fertile forms
reproduced into one population by each parent i.e. increase parental
Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF) where a favoured allele must allow a
parents TDF to *INCREASE*. The favoured allele which only has a
dependent fitness at the Darwinian level is simply not the correct
causative focus of the argument.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: First Cell Wall (response)
- Next by Date: Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- Previous by thread: First Cell Wall (response)
- Next by thread: Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
