Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:52:55 -0400 (EDT)
joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Joe Felsenstein) wrote:-
> Catherine Woodgold <an588@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >I don't agree about what might be a useful definition.
> >However, maybe if you provide some other definition,
> >then I might use that definition for "gene", and if I
> >want to talk about things I tend to think of as genes
> >I might use some other word. Is there a definition
> >of "gene" generally accepted on this newsgroup which
> >is clear and precise?
> The definition of "gene" is a (moderately) interesting question,
> but note that settling it is not essential to knowing whether
> Hamilton's Rule is valid. One can just ask about a single
> mutation, which might change (say) one nucleotide, and ask
> about the fate of that mutation in the population. This would
> be affected by Hamilton's Rule and you would never need to
> ask how large a stretch of DNA around the position of that
> mutation "was" a gene.
> What a gene "is" is a side issue at best, a red herring at worst.
JE:-
Why not have a really good Mad Hatter's Tea party and define one gene to be
one entire genome? Does HR work now?
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: Catherine Woodgold
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- Prev by Date: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by Date: Re: Article: On the Origins of Chemical Biodefense
- Previous by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|