Re: Underestimating 'r'

From: name_and_address_supplied@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 21:23:02 -0400 (EDT)

Jim McGinn wrote:
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:

> > The definition of 'r' doesn't depend upon
> > whether the allele is rare. However, it is the case (and I think this is what
> > you are saying) that it is easier to understand the logic of the situation
> > when the allele is rare.
>
> No, neoDarwinists believe that alleles for altruism should be rare due
> to Darwin's notion of individual selection.

I have to say, I laughed out loud at that one.

.

References:
- Underestimating 'r'
  - From: Tim Tyler

Prev by Date: Re: Underestimating 'r'
Next by Date: Re: Underestimating 'r'
Previous by thread: Re: Underestimating 'r'
Next by thread: Re: Underestimating 'r'
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Relevant Pages

Re: Underestimating r
... >>> Hamilton's rule can actually be used for group selection as well ... >>> rare allele in an individual also exists in the beneficiary of the ... >>> is rare). ...
(sci.bio.evolution)
Re: Kin Selection contradiction?
... >> in article cadt61$1fir$1@darwin.ediacara.org, Perplexed in Peoria at ... It must be the case that the probability that the two randomly ... > allele is fairly common in the population. ... also the problem of genealogical relatedness in the face of mutation (common ...
(sci.bio.evolution)
Re: Underestimating r
... > Jim McGinn wrote: ... >> Perplexed in Peoria wrote: ... Start with genetic similarity. ... >>> an identical allele will be found at that locus in a second individual. ...
(sci.bio.evolution)