Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:52:49 -0400 (EDT)
Guy Hoelzer wrote:
> in article diu8q1$7fi$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Catherine Woodgold at
> an588@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 10/16/05 12:14 PM:
>
> > William Morse (wdmorse@xxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
> >> You need to differentiate between the effect of a change in a single base
> >> pair on a gene's function, and defining a single base pair as a gene. A
> >> single base pair cannot even code for an amino acid. If it is in a
> >> stretch of "junk" DNA it won't code for an amino acid even in combination
> >> with two other base pairs. And even if it is part of a functional gene
> >> sequence, a change in one base pair (the SNP, or single-nucleotide
> >> polymorphism that is a staple of research into genetic diseases) will
> >> only cause a change in the phenome in a very small fraction of cases. So
> >> no, a definition of a gene as a single base pair is _not_ a useful
> >> definition. It adds nothing to our understanding of genetics.
> >
> > 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?
>
> I, for one, don't think so. 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. Of course, I think most of the confusion would be
> solved if only everybody else adopted my lexicon, but then everybody else
> probably thinks the same thing.
It seems we now have a whole new reason to
reject Hamilton's rule. Since he didn't
tell us how he defined gene his theory could
never be tested or substantiated.
It only takes one fatal error to refute a
hypothesis. And with Hamilton's rule we now
have two. 1) Failure to explain the rationale
for the assumption that R = genes IBD, and 2)
Ambiguity of the word 'gene'.
Jim
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: Guy Hoelzer
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- References:
- Hamilton's rule
- From: Catherine Woodgold
- Hamilton's rule
- Prev by Date: Re: Underestimating 'r'
- Next by Date: Re: Applying TDF (was understanding y)
- Previous by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
