Re: Underestimating 'r'

Tim Tyler <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote or quoted:

> So - is "r" higher than convention would dictate; and if so - how
> much higher? Evidence I've previously posted relating to the
> frequency of SNPs (and other polymorphisms) suggests to me that
> it is higher - and significantly so - perhaps enough to make me
> 70% related to my mother - rather than the 50% convention
> dictates - and enough to make individuals quite a bit more
> than 0% related to other "unrelated" members of the population.

One reply I was rather hoping to receive goes something like:

If typical "molecular biology" genes are commonly shared in
a population, all that goes to prove is that the
"evolutionary genes" are bigger than the "molecular biology"
ones - and measuring the probability of sharing "evolutionary genes"
is the most appropriate way of measuring relatedness in the
context of Hamilton's rule.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@xxxxxxxxxxx Remove lock to reply.

.

Quantcast