Re: The Fitness of MITOCHONDRIA
- From: "g" <gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:43:49 -0500 (EST)
"John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dtd3ak$21ur$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
JE:-
Since it appears that each mitochondrion was once a separate organism so
that each remained fitness independent (the fitness per mitochondria was
just additive), it now appears to have become fitness dependent (fitness
per
mitochondrion is now non additive). Note that this is NOT fitness
interdependent which is: mutualised additive fitness per mitochondrion per
population. Thus mitochondria must be selected today at just the one, same
and it appears just-boringly-simple-so-it-remains-utterly-ignored
monocentric level of fitness as per every other body part (including
genes):
the refutable Darwinian fertile organism level of selection. The relative
selective mechanism that is operating here is just an inevitable default
comparison (no intention required) of each and every selectee TDF within
one
population.
TDF represents critical TOTAL Darwinian Fitness: the total number of
fertile
forms reproduced into one population by each parent (of which today, each
mitochondrion only constitutes a dependent part) which represents a
constant
per Darwinian selectee per population. The default comparison of each TDF
per population can be modeled using simple high school Venn diagrams as
the
complete intersection (not merger) of each TDF. Each TDF total becomes one
set to be so intersected. OTOH non additive fitness (fitness dependence)
can
be modeled as nested sets of fitness (nested sets are commonly employed by
computer programmers within programming loops) where this type of set
remains excluded from basic set theory. Nested sets can provide some of
the
missing detail of merged sets. Each set nesting within one merged set can
have minimally one of two _contradictory_ configurations: Set A nested in
set B OR set B nested in set A. Note that the mathematics of set nesting
simply ignores these contradictory configurations because the same number
of
the most basic set element remains exactly the same. This is because A*B =
B*A, i.e. two books of three stamps and three books of two stamps have
exactly the same number of stamps which is six. However these demonstrate
a
REVERSED set nesting. Such contradictory nested sets are critically
DIFFERENT within evolutionary theory. This is because two sets of three
(three nested in two) will be selected differently to three sets of two
(two
nested in three). As an simple biological example: two organisms with
three
cells each is NOT the same as three organisms with two cells each so they
cannot be selected the same even if six cells have been reproduced in both
cases. Such a basic difference in fitness level complexity remains ignored
within evolutionary theory only because it is all the same to the
mathematicians.
John,
Glad you do not fault math for failing reality but any who apply a syntax
that does not fit empirical
sample.
BTW -- In brushing up on subject of DNA, and mutations, I note the text
indicates four scenarios:
change -- where one letter in a sequence is replaced by one of the other
three nucleotides)
reversal -- where an entire sequence is turned bass-ackward
deletion -- where a letter is omitted in the copy
insertion -- where a new letter (any one of the four nucleotides) is
inserted into a sequence
No mention is made (in the text I'm reading now) of other scramblings that
come to my mind:
a. a reversal of just two letters in a sequence
b. any other permutations of letters in a sequence (which can be
mathematically various)
Do these not occur? Or is the text just omitting mention (so far as I have
read yet) of these mathematical permutation variables.
g
.
- References:
- The Fitness of MITOCHONDRIA
- From: John Edser
- The Fitness of MITOCHONDRIA
- Prev by Date: Re: Most Important Unsolved Problems?
- Next by Date: Re: Fundamental Darwinism
- Previous by thread: The Fitness of MITOCHONDRIA
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
