Re: Evolution of sex revisited
- From: John Edser <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:11:10 -0400 (EDT)
Tim Tyler <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:-
I accessed Sally Otto's referenced paper - to see if it was correct.
It's a computer-model paper, and doesn't describe its algorithm or
provide source code :-(
The paper doesn't say its model is spatialised. Failure to use
a spatialised model is a key mistake in Red Queen models. It is
important for pathogens to be able to track their hosts down the
generations. Spatialisation is one simple way of doing that.
The paper concludes:
``These results show that, when a species must constantly evolve
to stay abreast of surrounding species, the Red Queen does not
maintain high amounts of sex and recombination unless species
interactions induce strong selection per locus.''
ISTM that the whole point of parasites in the model is that they
provide gigantic selection pressures - enough to counter-balance
the cost of sex.
This all seems rather weak to me. Is there any better evidence
against Hamilton's model that I am missing?
JE:-
1) Simplified/oversimplified modeling simulations cannot validly
_replace_ bona fide theories based on empirical observation.
2) Hamilton's inclusive fitness was and remains just an oversimplified
model of Darwinism that has been consistently misused, i.e. it is not a
bona fide theory of anything. The proof: Hamilton's rule does not refer
to a single constant, even implicitly. Mathematics is not and will never
be, a science.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
- Next by Date: Re: Mysteries of Sleep are Unfolding
- Previous by thread: Re: Evolution of sex revisited
- Next by thread: Editorial: Of primordial genomes and cooperative kittens
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
