Re: What's smallest known "self-sufficient" genome


"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

JE:-
What has any of the above got to do with the question? This was: when
one
cell divides by mitosis on an almost equal basis into two cells how does
what you wrote enable anybody to decide between:

1) Just the one original fitness independent parent is now deceased
reproducing itself 100% efficiently into two fitness independent
individuals.

2) The original fitness independent parent remains alive reproducing
just
the one fitness independent individual.

[snip]
JE:-
Then problem must be that you do not appreciate the gravity of the
question
under discussion. An objective test and not just "hand waving" is
required
to separate hypothesis 1 from hypothesis 2 (above). What test do you (or
anybody else here) use to do so?

I certainly don't understand the gravity of the question. What difference
does it make whether you say that the original cell survives with one
offspring (so far) or that the original cell ceases to exist with exactly
two offspring?

In either case, you have two individuals who have the same expected
fitness
from this point forward, but probably won't have exactly the same actual
fitness, since one may die while the other survives to reproduce (again?).
You stipulated that the two cells appear indistinguishable.

It is not a question of fact, it is a question of how you choose to
describe
the facts - or, I would say, how you choose to model the facts.
Since I
am
not an expert on Poisson distributions and the like, I would probably
choose
to model it as two new cells. But I am sure the math can be made to work
in either case. Maybe you can even make your nested sets model work for
either case (assuming of course that it works in other cases - I am still
unconvinced since it has still never been published).

Rather than challenging people to provide an experiment that
distinguishes,
John, why don't you suggest the experiment, if you think there is one.
And rather than lamenting the fact that neoDarwinists don't see the point
of this discussion, why don't you simply tell us what the point is?

JE:-
Ok Jim. Thank you for your forthright reply.








.