Re: NS and AaD curves
- From: "g" <gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:25:04 -0400 (EDT)
"Anon." <bob.ohara@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dgst1b$t6v$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Yes, it's a classic SIR epidemic.
> Your arguments are wrong, simply because you're not using the definition
> of fitness that is used in evolutionary biology. One problem is that
> much of what you're calling "fitness" is what we would call "condition":
> men in their early 20s generally are in better condition that the very
> young or very old. But being in your 20s is not a fitness trait:
> everyone who reaches that age gains the trait.
Correction accepted and appreciated. Condescension was not felt, although
poor writing style made it apparent. Actually my greatest joy in life is to
learn where my knowledge gaps are, and to be shown correction.
I have felt frustrated in the effort to grasp clearly and unambiguously the
meaning of 'fitness' as it is meant by those who use it. Its meaning
(assuming it is clear and unambiguous to those who use it properly) has
continued to elude me. Hence, I do not mean to be condescending when I
challenge others to give me an
exhaustive ontology that will unequivocally rule out what it does not mean,
and rule in what it does denote and connote.
> Fitness also has to have a (genetic) heritable component, if evolution is
> to occur. So, as driving a car is not a heritable trait in that sense
> (the extent to which it is inherited is cultural), so we wouldn't
> describe it as a fitness trait.
Without any intent to be impudent, let me disclose that the best sense I
have been able to grasp is a circular definition whereby that which has the
fitness to survive is that which survives, while that which does not have
that fitness does not survive. To me that is no more enlightening than to
say A is equal to B and the way that can be ascertained is by observing the
fact that B is equal to A.
Perhaps my sense of something-missing may turn out to be related to the
kindred sense I had about the role of genes in evolution and complexity,
which I am only now beginning to feel makes sense NOW THAT I have come
across an article by Gil Ast, a senior lecturer in the department of human
genetics and molecular medicine at the Tel Aviv Med School in Israel.
The "something-missing" that I sense was, indeed for me, exactly that.
Until the past few days, I was still laboring under the old assumption I had
read in more than one place, that there was a 1:1 correlation between genes
and proteins. I had read that humans have more alus than any other species
and that those alus are enormously more numerous than exons in human DNA.
The pieces were as incongruous to me as square pegs for round holes.
THEN, I learned from Gil Ast's article that complexity has not resulted from
genes alone, but from alternative gene splicings. I could not put the
article down. I read it a second time and am into a third reading. But no
longer do I have that feeling that something is missing from biological the
rationalization of how humans could have far fewer genes than some of the
'lower' species, and yet be more complex.
After I have absorbed that, I will try once again to grasp what is meant by
those who understand (or claim...? to understand) "survival of the fittest."
For me, something is missing about it. And circular-logic definitions do
not relieve me of that cold, empty, absence of meaning I experience each and
every time I see the term tossed lightly about as if "everybody" knew
exactly what it means, except me.
An explanation or example that opens up as many doors and windows of the
concept as the article by Ast are opening up for me, would put me forever in
debt to whomever would enable me to fill the gap I have not found any way,
through now, to bridge.
g
> Where you are right is in seeing that there is not fitness "plan":
> anmals don't go around with their fitness stamped on their heads (*).
Never mind the bonus points, but the analogy of something that would
indicate a link between outward appearance and predisposition to survive
does not ring relevant for me, especially in consideration of the fact I did
not intend any such link.
> Instead they reproduce and die at varying rates.
Yes, but one of the issues I have in trying to grasp this is that there is
no gene that works in all sets of externalities. For example, a gene (or
alternative gene splicing) that renders the legs of a snake so unremarkable
in expression as to be invisible and, hence, disabuses the snake of
expending energy to grow them and then drag them around all its life, does
NOT benefit, say, a horse.
For all I know, the very same gene that may trigger vastly different
expressions of a 'hand' in a whale, versus a hand in a bonobo, versus a hand
of a human... has been conserved over what... thousands of years...?
millions...? billions...? (Again, let me emphasize that the new-to-me
comprehension of the fact that alternative gene splicings can be found,
which utilize alus to derive any of two or more alternative protiens, and
thus provide a logical mechanism for conceiving of variant 'responses' for
variant local externalities, removes the gut feeling I so long experienced
that "something was missing" from the evolution via genes, only
miscognation. And, hopefully, out of that, or out of some similar expansion
of possibilities, might come a eureka experience out of my dilemma over
'survival of the fittest.')
> that mean that they reproduce more, or die at a lower rate, will tends
> to pass on their genes: hence evolution.
Sorry. With all due respect, that is too broad and vague to enable me to
remove my gaps in understanding it.
>We use fitness to quantify
> this, i.e. to put a number on the differential rate at which genes are
> passed on.
Again, with utmost respect, and with utmost desire to 'get it,' there are
too many conserved genes, shared in common by far too many grossly different
(in form and function) species, for me to see how the passing on of a given
gene produces a specific 'adaptive' result every time.
>This is what fitness tells us: if Hitler used a different
> concept to develop his ideas, then OK, he did. But he never worked on
> biology, so it's not clear why we should use his definition of fitness
> in biology.
Quite right. Hitler's adoption of an ethic whereby eugenics might be
condoned or persued as productive of a desirable result, does not meet with
the bounds of my philosopica 'value judgements.' And, quite right, also,
that his idea of ubermensch fits my idea of either a good political strategy
nor one supported by good "biology."
>
> Bob
>
> (*) Bonus points will be awarded to those who can point out in what
> sense this is not true. It doesn't alter my basic argument, just makes
> it more complex.
See response at place of leading asterisk.
THANK YOU, Bob.
Much respect for you. Much appreciation for your expertise. And much
humility and willingness to learn anything you would share on these
subjects.
>
> --
> Bob O'Hara
> Department of Mathematics and Statistics
> P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2b)
> FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
> Finland
>
> Telephone: +358-9-191 51479
> Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
> Fax: +358-9-191 51400
> WWW: http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
> Journal of Negative Results - EEB: www.jnr-eeb.org
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: NS and AaD curves
- From: Anon.
- Re: NS and AaD curves
- References:
- NS and AaD curves
- From: g
- Re: NS and AaD curves
- From: IRR
- Re: NS and AaD curves
- From: Anon.
- Re: NS and AaD curves
- From: g
- Re: NS and AaD curves
- From: Anon.
- NS and AaD curves
- Prev by Date: Re: Obcells - was: Unequal branch lengths
- Next by Date: Oleg V. Davydov
- Previous by thread: Re: NS and AaD curves
- Next by thread: Re: NS and AaD curves
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
