Re: Haldane's Lemma



"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-

"kramer" <kodream@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Does Haldane's lemma take into account that chimps and ape's are both
evolving, and that at some point and time they became reproductively
incompatible?

It is Haldane's dilemma, not Haldane's lemma. A dilemma is a kind of
problem, a lemma is a kind of theorem. Probably 'dilemma' was a poor
choice as the name of this problem, since a dilemma is a "Damned if you
do, damned if you don't" kind of problem, and I don't see that the
issue that Haldane raised is that kind of problem.

JE:-
I am amazed that you do not see the Dilemma aspect of Haldane's calculation.
IF just the tiny number of genes that Haldane calculated can be substituted
is about right then Haldane's oversimplified additive population genetics
cannot explain where all the heritable information is coded. IF you allow
heritable genetic epistasis (heritable non additive coding) then you can
pack all this information into just a tiny space. The problem now becomes
how to you preserve it and how you retrieve it. However, the "Dilemma"
aspect is not just this, it is once you let in only a dash of heritable
epistatic coding everything that is gene centric now has to be thrown out.
This is because additive multiplied by non additive produces NON additive.
This means Fisher's heritability assumption has to be thrown out along with
Haldane's Dilemma, Haldane's Pub Rule, Hamilton's Rule, Triver's reciprocal
altruism, Dawkins' selfish gene, Wilson's Sociobiology and Moran's random
evolution oxymoron (which throws itself out regardless).

The carnage produced by ADMITTING Haldane's Dilemma never existed in the
first place is just devastating to the dominant gene centric school. We are
talking about deflating the egos of powerful public sector mandarins and
forcing the reinvestment of 100's millions of research dollars worldwide.
However, when all the political babble is over and done with and the mass of
epistemological rubble produced by this entirely unnecessary ruckus is
eventually cleared away, Waddington's ignored model will remain standing
with a flashing sign attached by me: "WAD TOLD YOU SO OVER 50 YEARS AGO".

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxx




.