Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:59:37 -0400 (EDT)
Catherine Woodgold wrote:
> > "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:diml9r$5v4$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> I think she meant "stability" in the sense that it is a behavior that
> >> will persist--remain adaptive--over multiple generations.
>
> That's right. The point of all this is, IMO, to make
> predictions about what types of genes are likely to
> be out there in real organisms, and to explain why.
> Or to put it another way, to predict what behaviours
> are likely to be happening in real organisms.
> The genes that persist and take over are (usually)
> the ones one tends to see in the real world.
> --
> Cathy Woodgold
> http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
> We are all Iraqis now.
NeoDarwinists have lost sight of this (as you explained above) being
the simple end that any evolutionary explanation must serve. They are
intoxicated on the pie-in-the-sky notion that genealogy has some kind
of causative power that is entwined in genes. It's really nothing but
smoke and mirrors.
Jim
.
- References:
- Hamilton's rule
- From: Catherine Woodgold
- Hamilton's rule
- Prev by Date: Re: Underestimating 'r'
- Next by Date: Re: Underestimating 'r'
- Previous by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
