Re: Underestimating 'r'
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:15:50 -0400 (EDT)
jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
> > I hereby argue that it's the other way around: if a is
> > rare, it's more likely to be a recent mutation and
> > to just behave in some random way. Since A is common,
> > it must have gotten common somehow so it's more
> > likely to behave in a way that promotes its own success.
> Disagree. Most genes that become common do so without
> promoting themselves. They become common because they
> provide fitness to the organisms that carry them. (Hmmm.
> Does that count as self-promotion?).
JE:-
No, it does not count as self-promotion. It counts as dependent and
therefore non self promoting epistatic gene fitness. OTOH organism promotion
counts as an entirely independent Darwinian fitness which must contest other
independent fitnesses so it has no other choice but to be self promoting.
Paradoxically, the best way to promote oneself within fierce competition is
via cooperation.
A dependent gene fitness remains a non reversible nested set within
independent organism fitness describing a complex multiplicative fitness
association. However, competing independent fitnesses are just reversible
intersecting sets describing just a simple additive fitness association.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Article: On the Origins of Chemical Biodefense
- Next by Date: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Previous by thread: Re: Underestimating 'r'
- Next by thread: Re: Underestimating 'r'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
