Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:52:53 -0400 (EDT)
Guy Hoelzer <hoelzer@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Hamilton's rule
> ...IMHO the word "gene" is one of the most
> sloppily used terms in all of biology. I try to avoid using this term to
> mean anything other than a specific DNA sequence that is transcribed into
> RNA. Most of the time when we say "gene", what we mean is "allele."
> Other
> times, we merely mean "locus." There is so much historical baggage that
> comes along with use of the word "gene" at this point, I don't see any
> hope
> of fixing the problem.
JE:-
The source of the problem is that a gene was and remains CORRELTED to a
phenotype larger than just a polypeptide. Any correlation is only exactly
that, just a correlation. The problem is that population geneticists have to
assume that it is harder than just a correlation otherwise they have no
beans for their bean bags. This is the reason why they had no other choice
other than to delete all gene fitness epistasis providing only heuristic
independent in fitness genes. It is only recently that Fisher's heuristic
gene centric chicken has come home to roost.
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: Hamilton's rule
- Next by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
