Text 1283, 129 rader
Skriven 2004-12-31 20:25:00 av Jim McGinn (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: What is R (relatednes
=================================



Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> "John Edser" <edser@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:cquoj9$ue7$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> >
> >
> > "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> JE:_
> > >> [snip]
> > >> Within Hamilton's Rule rb has all the
> > >> "inherited" but (Fisher) defined "non heritable"
> > >> epistatic information deleted within rb
> > >> whereas c includes ALL of it.
> > >> [snip]
> >
> > >JM:-
> > >I don't see this at all.  John, could you explain what you mean
> > >by "epistatic information", how it can be inherited, and how "c"
> > >has it but "rb" does not.
> >
> > JE:-
> > Epistatic information is the information
> > produced via parental genomic gene associations.
> > Epistasis requires a minimum of two parental
> > loci. In Hamilton's Rule c represents the cost
> > of b in normal, i.e. Darwinian fertile
> > organism units. Therefore all the heritable
> > epistatic information that is possible
> > using sex where n loci are inherited
> > after a meiotic reduction of 2n loci
> > must be contained within the cost c.
> > However Hamilton's competitor rb, only
> > refers to just the one locus. It ignores
> > all the others by definition. Thus all
> > epistatic information that is heritable
> > via n parental genomic loci has been
> > deleted by definition within Hamilton's
> > rb. Thus rb cannot be validly compared
> > to c within any science of biology.
>
> OK, I think I see what you are getting at (for the first
> time!).  But let me try to put your argument into my
> own words, just to see if I understand it.

I've come to learn that it is a mistake to assume
anything John says actually makes rational sense.

> Epistatic information exists.

Uh, okay.  I'd say this is a pretty conservative
proposition.  Nobody disputes this.

> Its heritability in a
> sexual population is limited (as compared, say, to
> its heritability in an asexual haploid population)
> but it is NOT ZERO.

I don't quite understand what this statement means.
It has the ring of typical Edserian nonsense.  What
units might you employ to enumerate heritability?

> Since "c" (and "b") are defined
> to be hypothetical decrements (or increments) to ordinary
> organism-level fitnesses, which are in units of fertile
> organisms produced, there is a sense in which "c"
> can be said to contain epistatic information - the
> hypothetical fertile organisms represented by "c"
> would have contained the heritable portion of the
> donor's epistatic information, if the donor had not
> been foolish enough to donate.

I can't make any sense at all of this sentence.
I think I followed it up until the phrase,
" . . . there is a sense in which "c" can be
said to contain epistatic information."

> However, the situation with "b" is not symmetric!

In comparison to what?

> Yes, "b" does represent hypothetical fertile organisms
> just as "c" does.

Uh, okay.  What's your point?

> But these organisms are children of
> the recipient, not children of the donor.

Relevance?

> It may
> be the case that "r" is the proper dilution factor for
> determining how many of the donor's single genes end up
> in the recipient's children,

What do you mean, "It may be . . .?"  Is it or
is it not and what is a "dilution factor," and
why do you (or John) think it's necessary?

> but it is not the proper
> dilution factor for determining how much of the donor's
> epistatic information ends up in the recipient's children.

I can't make sense of this statement.  Is there
such thing as non-epistatic information.  If not
then why are you drawing a distinction?  If so
then how do you quantify it?

> For that, we would need to use "r" raised to some power!

IOW, IBD is inadequate, at best.

> Is this what you are trying to say, John?

As I believe you will soon realize (again) it's
presumptuous of you to assume that John comprehends
what he is saying.

Jim
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/31/04 8:25:52 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)