Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: "Phil Roberts, Jr." <philrob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 02:06:27 -0400 (EDT)
Guy Hoelzer wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Isn't the term often placed in quotations to denote a metaphor or
non-literal usage? Isn't the term simply a pointer to what is
assumed to be an inheritable causal agent that produces relevant
phenotypic effects and is sufficiently durable to be acted upon
by natural selection? Here's what Dawkins had to say in the
'Selfish Gene':
I am using the term 'gene' to mean a genetic unit that is small
enough to last for a large number of generations and to be
distributed around in the form of many copies...
In sexually reproducing species the individual is too large and
too temporary a genetic unit to qualify as a unit of natural
selection...
Individuals are not stable things, they are fleeting. Chromosomes
too are shuffled into oblivion, like hands of cards soon after
they are dealt. But the cars themselves survive the shuffling.
PR
.
- References:
- Hamilton's rule
- From: Catherine Woodgold
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: Catherine Woodgold
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: Guy Hoelzer
- Hamilton's rule
- Prev by Date: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by Date: Re: Hamilton's Rule is Xeno's Paradox ( was Re: Underestimating 'r')
- Previous by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
