Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: an588@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Catherine Woodgold)
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:34:52 -0400 (EDT)
> 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?
That isn't all that crazy, actually. In the two
haploid examples I was talking about (mostly copying
PiP's example, I think), you could call "AB" a "gene".
A and B could be the two chromosomes of a two-chromosome
organism with only rare crossover events.
And yes, I think Hamilton's rule does work in
that case!! At least, the frequency of AB in the
population does tend to increase if the behaviour
of the organism with AB is to choose to
do altruism when br > c and not to do so
when br < c.
I like to use the term "gene" for any nonempty subset
of the genome, including the whole genome.
It's usually convenient, though, to make it
a small part of the genome; that's how
people tend to think of it. Otherwise you have
to consider crossover etc. Mind you, I suspect
Hamilton's rule will still work out the same
even if there's crossover, just as it does in
the case with AB where A and B are two different
chromosomes that get split up but can come
together again in future generations.
--
Cathy Woodgold
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
We are all Iraqis now.
.
- References:
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: John Edser
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- Prev by Date: Re: Hamilton's rule
- 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
|
