Re: Underestimating 'r'
- From: "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 13:52:20 -0400 (EDT)
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
> > Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> > > Here is how it works. Start with genetic similarity. Choose your favorite
> > > allele at some locus of the donor. Ask what is the probability that
> > > an identical allele will be found at that locus in a second individual.
> > > More precisely, since the second individual has two genes at that locus,
> > > we randomly choose one of the two and ask for the probability that it
> > > is identical to our favorite allele. Also, more precisely, I should
> > > point out that that second individual was also chosen randomly -
> > > either from the set of the donor's recipients, or from the general
> > > population.
> >
> > We know that for any two members of the same
> > species that upwards of 99% of the time they
> > will both have the allele. Less than 1% of
> > the time only one of them will have the allele.
>
> Not so. You seem to have missed that the allele in question was selected
> arbitrarily. I said, "Choose your favorite allele". The allele I am
> talking about is not necessarily one of the common ones.
Hey, it's your pipe dream. I'm not objecting to any
assumptions you want to make as long as you make them
explicit. Read again the first words that I quoted
above, you stated: "Here's how it works." It seems
you've stopped midstream. Keep going. Tell us how it
works. And don't forget to be explicit about your
inclusion of the assumption that genes IBD = R. And
don't let the fact that I'm 100% positive that you
will never answer the question stop you from doing just
that. Okay? So let's stop dilly dallying around and
do some real science here.
> In fact, since natural selection works upon genetic variation, and results
> in changes in gene frequency, the alleles that evolutionary theorists are
> most interested in are almost never ones in that majority of alleles that
> are the same in almost every member of the population.
Yes, obviously, HR is intended to explain the origin
of novelty. Now get back to your point, assuming
you still have one.
<snip sour grapes>
Jim
.
- References:
- Underestimating 'r'
- From: Tim Tyler
- Underestimating 'r'
- 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):
Relevant Pages
|
