Complexity

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Chupacabra, Apr 14, 2004.

  1. John Edser

    John Edser Guest

    friend <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> JE:- Darwinian natural selection, exactly as Darwin
    >> stated it but with his implicit assumptions made
    >> explicit.

    > BOH:- I think I should point out that John's definition of
    > fitness excludes the possibility of drift (because he
    > defines fitness in terms of the actual number of
    > offspring, rather than the expected value).

    F:- Is the expected value of any conceivable use?

    JE:- Yes: when (which is most of the time) we do not have an
    exact measure of total Darwinian fitness for every Darwinian
    selectee within one population.

    As long as the expected value:

    1) Attempts to measure _total_ Darwinian fitness per
    selectee and not just a sub total.

    2) The expectation does not replace any actual, measured
    Darwinian fitness total.

    Then: the expected value is not misused. If the expected
    value is just a simplified model of Darwinian total fitness
    and attempts to compete and win against it, then such a
    model of expected fitness is utterly misused because the
    model seeks to replace the reality it is only attempting to
    model! Unbelievably, this continues to be a general error
    within gene centric Neo Darwinism.

    > JE:- Dr O'Hara has misrepresented my position. Drift is
    > _included_ as temporal variation (random variation over
    > time) within Darwinian selective events. Mutation is
    > included as random variation within genetic space.
    > Darwinian evolution by natural selection has, from its
    > inception, required variation that is assumed to be
    > random. Only _non_ random forms of variation can validly
    > compete against Darwinian selection for evolutionary
    > causation. Sampling error is not one of them. Isn't it
    > just obvious that an "expected value" is just an
    > approximation of "the actual number of offspring" which I
    > stress (yet again) is the TOTAL (requiring a time frame to
    > complete) of only FERTILE forms reproduced into ONE
    > population by EACH Darwinian selectee (one fertile form)?
    > Please note that Dr O'Hara, refused to address the problem
    > that I addressed in detail: setting up a _controlled_
    > experiment to test if random patterns can _alone_, cause
    > "evolution".

    F:- I think only with genetic engineering is it possible to
    even approach random patterns. And then it is very
    imperfect practically. Very difficult.

    JE:- Random patterns remain: random. Thus, they cannot be
    predicted.

    > AGAIN: Please state what would be EXCLUDED from such an
    > _amazingly_ wide acceptance of what Dr Moran insists can
    > _scientifically_ constitute "evolution", i.e. would Dr
    > Moran please provide at least one example of a _non_
    > evolutionary change within a biological system. PLEASE
    > COMMENT ON THE BELOW:-
    > 1) Drift defined as evolution is not testable because any
    > random pattern can validly be assumed to be caused by
    > either a random or non random process.
    > 2) It is only possible to halt all selection within a
    > natural population by forcing the _total_ number of
    > _fertile_ forms reproduced by each Darwinian selectee
    > in one population to remain equal. Does Dr Moran agree
    > or disagree? Only by controlling selection can random
    > genetic drift patterns even be observed acting _alone_.

    G:- If then...

    > Does Dr Moran dispute the fact that to just observe the
    > effect of random patterns on their own, selection must be
    > controlled? Does Dr Moran understand/teach the need for
    > controlled experiments to his students? The predicted net
    > result of drift without selection within a controlled
    > experiment is the dissolution of every Darwinian selectee
    > within that population. Does Dr Moran disagree with this
    > prediction? If Dr Moran agrees with the prediction, how
    > can he maintain that genetic dissolution that inevitably
    > leads to a _lowering_ of Darwinian fitness for every
    > selectee constitute "evolution"?

    H:- I think it is much worse than this; my understanding may
    be too narrow but too much has happened (eg. crossover)
    before the individual is subject to very much selection to
    regard it as 'just' random. So even with selection the
    prognosis may not be so good.

    JE:- My main point is: only NON random patterns can be
    controlled,
    H.a. eliminated. Random patterns cannot be eliminated, only
    allowed for.

    To test if ANY random pattern can cause evolution, selection
    must be controlled and eliminated within an experimental
    situation. Such a requirement is just _basic_ science. Dr
    Moran et al wishes to classify just a random pattern as
    "evolution" without having to supply any experimental proof
    that ANY random pattern can produce evolution without
    selection, i.e. he wishes to dictate what evolution is just
    to suit his own purposes. What are his purposes? You will
    have to ask Dr Moran that question...

    > JE:- Genetic drift without selection cannot cause
    > evolution even it can cause gene freq changes in a deme.
    > Selection can cause evolution without genetic drift but
    > genetic drift cannot cause evolution without selection.
    > Random genetic drift is just temporal variation; nothing
    > more and nothing less. Evolution at the gene centric level
    > can only be validly defined as any non random gene freq.
    > change in a deme.

    I:- Is selection on the random change exactly *that* non
    random change?

    JE:- Yes, the selective event is NON random even if the
    variation that is provided was only random. Ever since its
    inception non random selection has required random
    variation.

    Regards,

    John Edser Independent Researcher

    PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

    [email protected]
     


  2. Anon.

    Anon. Guest

    friend wrote:
    > John Edser wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>>JE:- Darwinian natural selection, exactly as Darwin
    >>>stated it but with his implicit assumptions made
    >>>explicit.
    >>
    >>BOH:- I think I should point out that John's definition of
    >>fitness excludes the possibility of drift (because he
    >>defines fitness in terms of the actual number of
    >>offspring, rather than the expected value).
    >>
    >
    >
    > Is the expected value of any conceivable use?
    >
    Yes - it's predicted from models of selection, so you can
    develop a determistic model for selection, and it will
    usually give the same value as the expected value here.

    Bob

    --
    Bob O'Hara

    Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
    P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5) FIN-00014 University of
    Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 23743 Mobile:
    +358 50 599 0540 Fax: +358-9-191 22 779 WWW:
    http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/ Journal of Negative
    Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org
     
  3. JE: Yes, the selective event is NON random even if the
    variation that is provided was only random. Ever since its
    inception non random selection has required random
    variation.

    MR:You're basic argument seems to be that randomness can't
    occur without selection and vice versa. Its my
    understanding most biologists accept random genetic drift
    and natural selection not being necessarily mutually
    exclusive. Your assertion would seem to be they are never
    mutually exclusive. "F" remarks, " I think only with
    genetic engineering is it possible to even approach
    random patterns. And then it is very imperfect
    practically. Very difficult. You reply, "Random patterns
    remain: random.Thus, they cannot be predicted." Yet if
    selection can't occur without randomness there must be a
    way (perhaps still unknown) to predict how the randomness
    of evolution translates into selection. If that is the
    case then possibly one day it will be possible to predict
    random patterns. I would think genetic engineering has
    offered such opportunities.

    "F" remarks "I think it is much worse than this; my
    understanding may be too narrow but too much has happened
    (eg. crossover) before the individual is subject to very
    much selection to regard it as 'just' random. So even with
    selection the prognosis may not be so good. I don't fully
    understand meiosis but apparently the point here is crossing
    over plays an important role in terms of "selection" for it
    just to be 'random'.

    You state, "My main point is: only NON random patterns can
    be controlled, i.e. eliminated. Random patterns cannot be
    eliminated, only allowed for." Certainly with genetic
    engineering random patterns can be eliminated as well as
    allowed for. You further state, "To test if ANY random
    pattern can cause evolution, selection must be controlled
    and eliminated within an experimental situation. Yet random
    genetic drift can't be proved because it is impossible to
    establish it has occurred in the absense of selection..

    Michael Ragland
     
  4. Anon.

    Anon. Guest

    John Edser wrote:
    >>>>JE:- Pardon me butting in but.. please state what would
    >>>>be EXCLUDED from such an _amazingly_ wide acceptance of
    >>>>what you insist can _scientifically_ constitute
    >>>>"evolution", i.e. please provide at least one example of
    >>>>a _non_ evolutionary change within a biological system.
    >>>
    >
    >>BOH:- Any change that isn't heritable.
    >
    >
    >>JE:- The above becomes a self fulfilling prophecy when
    >>genetic epistasis is _defined_ as "inherited" but not
    >>"heritable" and thus, "selectable".
    >
    >
    > BOH:- Huh? From the OED definition of heritable: Naturally
    > transmissible or transmitted from parent to offspring;
    > hereditary. You're mixing up being heritable with the
    > qunatitative genetic concept of "heritability" (=the
    > proportion of variance in a trait due to additive genetic
    > variation). They are not the same thing.
    >
    > JE:- "Heritability" and "heritable" mean the same thing: a
    > selectable trait. You used the word "heritable" and not
    > the word "heritability" as in: "Any change that isn't
    > heritable".
    >
    In genetics and evolutionary biology, they don't mean the
    same thing. Please try and educate yourself first before
    making comments like this.

    As for epistasis, if something isn't heritable, then it
    can't be inherited. Genetic epistatic effects can be
    inherited (because groupds of genes can be inherited
    together), and hence does not come under what I was
    suggesting.

    <snip>

    >>>>LM:- Did you have something else in mind that would
    >>>> shift random genetic drift into second place?
    >>>
    >
    >>>>JE:- Darwinian natural selection, exactly as Darwin
    >>>>stated it but with his implicit assumptions made
    >>>>explicit.
    >>>
    >
    >>>BOH:- I think I should point out that John's definition
    >>>of fitness excludes the possibility of drift (because he
    >>>defines fitness in terms of the actual number of
    >>>offspring, rather than the expected value).
    >>
    >
    >>>JE:- Dr O'Hara has misrepresented my position. Drift is
    >>>_included_ as temporal variation (random variation over
    >>>time) within Darwinian selective events.
    >>
    >
    >>BOH:- John, what is your definition of fitness? I was
    >>specifically describing your definition of fitness, but in
    >>your reply you didn't make any mention of it, so it's not
    >>clear to me how I've misrepresented you.
    >
    >
    >>JE:- It is not how I define it but how Darwin would have
    >>defined it after his implicit assumptions were made
    >>explicit. I have posted what Darwinian fitness is (and the
    >>reverse engineering experiment needed to prove it)
    >>countless times, including, within this thread.
    >>_____________________________________________________
    >>Darwinian fitness is the _total_ number of _fertile_ forms
    >>reproduced by _one_ Darwinian selectee (one fertile form)
    >>within _one_ population.
    >>_____________________________________________________
    >
    >
    > BOH:- OK, so my point is that drift is the difference
    > between observed and [mathematical] expectation of the
    > change in allele frequency (the expectation coming from a
    > model of selection, using the conventional definition of
    > fitness):
    >
    > JE:- The "the conventional definition of fitness" is only
    > relative at just ONE single point in time but the
    > Darwinian definition is an absolute total over a defined
    > TIME FRAME:

    The time frame is irrelevant to my argument, and discussing
    it here will just make things even more confused.

    <snip>
    >
    > BOH:- the total number of fertile offspring is the sum of
    > the expected number, and the drift effect.
    >
    > JE:- Because any absolute measure of fitness has to, since
    > it must also include all variation within one evolutionary
    > change. Please note that a relative measure of fitness is
    > not sufficient simply because you cannot differentiate
    > between organism fitness altruism (OFA) and organism
    > fitness mutualism (OFM) using just one relative
    > comparative measure.
    >
    > While it is possible to separately measure the variation
    > caused by random patterns from variation caused by non
    > random patterns, it is not possible to say that a random
    > variation pattern must have been caused by just, a random
    > process. Drift theorists refuse to admit that this is the
    > case and has always been the case throughout the history
    > of science. This is why science throws out random patterns
    > as inconclusive.
    >
    > BOH:- Your definition conflates the effects of selection
    > and drift, by defining fitness in terms of the obseved
    > number. Any random variation in the number of offspring
    > that we would ascribe to drift you would include in the
    > fitness measure, and hence would ascribe to selection.
    >
    > JE:- Yes,

    OK, good. This is the point I was trying to make: you define
    fitness in such a way as to include any drift effects into
    it. So, for you drift does not exist, as it's in your
    fitness measure.

    Bob

    --
    Bob O'Hara

    Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
    P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5) FIN-00014 University of
    Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 23743 Mobile:
    +358 50 599 0540 Fax: +358-9-191 22 779 WWW:
    http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/ Journal of Negative
    Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org
     
  5. "Anon." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > As for epistasis, if something isn't heritable, then it
    > can't be inherited. Genetic epistatic effects can be
    > inherited (because groups of genes can be inherited
    > together), and hence does not come under what I was
    > suggesting.

    Pardon me for butting in, but some time ago I told John that
    the reason that non-additive epistatic effects are usually
    omitted from evolutionary models is that such effects are
    not effectively heritable. Was this incorrect?

    In saying this, I had in mind the situation in which the two
    loci are on different chromosomes. I (and John, I think)
    realize that there is some heritability when the loci are in
    the same linkage group, but it seems to me that weak linkage
    cannot be a factor in long term evolution. Strong linkage,
    of course, might be a factor, but this doesn't argue against
    the adequacy of the models because a strongly linked cluster
    of loci can be treated as a single "super-gene" in the
    additive models.
     
  6. John Edser

    John Edser Guest

    >>>JE:- Darwinian natural selection, exactly as Darwin
    >>>stated it but with his implicit assumptions made
    >>>explicit.

    >>BOH:- I think I should point out that John's definition of
    >>fitness excludes the possibility of drift (because he
    >>defines fitness in terms of the actual number of
    >>offspring, rather than the expected value).

    > F:- Is the expected value of any conceivable use?

    BOH:- Yes - it's predicted from models of selection, so you
    can develop a determistic model for selection, and it will
    usually give the same value as the expected value here.

    JE:- Dr O'Hara has failed to say from which testable
    theory/theories (views that can be verified or refuted)
    these _non_ testable models are just simplifications/ over
    simplifications, from. Unless Dr O'Hara specifically
    nominates his missing theory/theories, he has misused
    these models.

    Best Wishes,

    John Edser Independent Researcher

    PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

    [email protected]
     
  7. John Edser

    John Edser Guest

    JE: Yes, the selective event is NON random even if the
    variation that is provided was only random. Ever since its
    inception non random selection has required random
    variation.

    MR:You're basic argument seems to be that randomness can't
    occur without selection and vice versa.

    JE:- Some random variation is required if selection is to be
    able operate. This does not need to be genetic drift because
    this is not the only random pattern that can provide
    variation. Also, it is impossible to stop all random
    variation but it is possible to stop natural selection,
    which provides a non random pattern.

    MS:- Its my understanding most biologists accept random
    genetic drift and natural selection not being necessarily
    mutually exclusive.

    JE:- All random processes are self exclsuive to all non
    random processes because they are self contradictory.
    However, just the observation of a random _pattern_ does not
    exclude the possibility that a non random _process_ formed
    it because they are not contradictory. A non random process,
    can and does, form random patterns a lot/most of the time.

    MT:- Your assertion would seem to be they are never mutually
    exclusive.

    JE:- My assertion was:- All defined non random processes are
    mutually exclusive to all defined random processes.

    MU:- "F" remarks, " I think only with genetic engineering is
    it possible to even approach random patterns. And then it
    is very imperfect practically. Very difficult. You reply,
    "Random patterns remain: random.Thus, they cannot be
    predicted." Yet if selection can't occur without
    randomness there must be a way (perhaps still unknown) to
    predict how the randomness of evolution translates into
    selection.

    JE:- The randomness of variation translates into evolution
    if and only if, random variation is _selected_. This is the
    only way known to include any defined random process within
    a theory (can be varified or refuted) of evolution.

    MV:- If that is the case then possibly one day it will be
    possible to predict random patterns. I would think
    genetic engineering has offered such opportunities.

    JE:- Ther only possible way to predict random patterns is
    show they were not random patterns in the first place.

    MW:- "F" remarks "I think it is much worse than this; my
    understanding may be too narrow but too much has happened
    (eg. crossover) before the individual is subject to very
    much selection to regard it as 'just' random. So even
    with selection the prognosis may not be so good. I don't
    fully understand meiosis but apparently the point here is
    crossing over plays an important role in terms of
    "selection" for it just to be 'random'.

    You state, "My main point is: only NON random patterns can
    be controlled, i.e. eliminated. Random patterns cannot be
    eliminated, only allowed for." Certainly with genetic
    engineering random patterns can be eliminated as well as
    allowed for.

    JE:- Random patterns cannot be entirely eliminated because
    BOTH random and non random processes commonly cause them.
    All you can do is allow for a random componant. This is most
    commonly allowed for as a defined zero observation, e.g. a
    defined random distribution such as the HW binomal
    distribution model of allels in a heuristic infinite
    population.

    MX:- You further state, "To test if ANY random pattern can
    cause evolution, selection must be controlled and
    eliminated within an experimental situation. Yet random
    genetic drift can't be proved because it is impossible to
    establish it has occurred in the absense of selection..

    JE:- You appear to have confused a random _pattern_ with a
    random _process_. Don't worry, Neo Darwinists do so almost
    all of the time. Note that this does not make such an
    error, correct! Yes, "genetic drift can't be proved because
    it is impossible to establish it has occurred in the
    absence of selection" because genetic drift is a supposed
    random PROCESS and not just a supposed random PATTERN.
    However, it is possible to allow for only a random pattern
    to cause all gene freq. changes within one natural
    population but even here, it is not possible to suggest
    that only a random process (genetic drift) caused this
    controlled, random pattern.

    It is possible to control for selection (eliminate the non
    random pattern caused by Darwinian selection theory within a
    real experimental situation) but it is not possible to
    control for the process of random genetic sampling error
    (genetic drift), only allow for it, because genetic drift
    cannot be eliminated from any natural population.

    Regards

    John Edser Independent Researcher

    PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105

    Australia

    [email protected]
     
  8. John Edser

    John Edser Guest

    >>>>JE:- Pardon me butting in but.. please state what would
    >>>>be EXCLUDED from such an _amazingly_ wide acceptance of
    >>>>what you insist can _scientifically_ constitute
    >>>>"evolution", i.e. please provide at least one example of
    >>>>a _non_ evolutionary change within a biological system.

    >>BOH:- Any change that isn't heritable.

    >>JE:- The above becomes a self fulfilling prophecy when
    >>genetic epistasis is _defined_ as "inherited" but not
    >>"heritable" and thus, "selectable".

    > BOH:- Huh? From the OED definition of heritable: Naturally
    > transmissible or transmitted from parent to offspring;
    > hereditary. You're mixing up being heritable with the
    > qunatitative genetic concept of "heritability" (=the
    > proportion of variance in a trait due to additive genetic
    > variation). They are not the same thing.

    > JE:- "Heritability" and "heritable" mean the same thing: a
    > selectable trait. You used the word "heritable" and not
    > the word "heritability" as in: "Any change that isn't
    > heritable".

    BOH:- In genetics and evolutionary biology, they don't mean
    the same thing. Please try and educate yourself first before
    making comments like this.

    JE:- EITHER, something is defined as selectable or it is not
    so defined. If, according to you, "heritable" and
    "heritablility" don't mean the same thing, please explain
    the difference.

    I was attempting to "try and educate" myself re: the common
    use of these concepts within Neo Darwinism. However, what I
    am being taught makes no rational sense. All I can make out
    is that quantitative genetics _models_ of “heritability”
    delete non additive variation as "heritable" and thus
    "selectable" information even though it is actually
    "inherited". These models alone, dictate that gene fitness
    epistasis, which ties all gene fitnesses together at just
    _one_ level of selection, can be validly deleted via the
    simplification. This simplification and nothing else,
    allowed Hamilton's heuristic model of independent gene
    fitnesses (only allow additive variation as heritable
    information) to be able to compete and win against Darwinian
    theory forcing organism fitness altruism (OFA) which is
    totally excluded by Darwinism.

    AGAIN: Please supply a real biological example (not just a
    generalisation) of:

    1) Something “inherited” in nature.
    2) Something “heritable” in nature.
    3) The “heritability” of something in nature.

    BOH:- As for epistasis, if something isn't heritable, then
    it can't be inherited.

    JE:- You were suggesting that additive variation was
    "heritable" and thus "selectable" information but the non
    additive variation was "non heritable" and thus "non
    selectable".

    So, genetic epistasis is actually "inherited" but it is not
    "heritable" so it is not "selectable" when it is composed
    of non additive variation within quantitative models? This
    means to me that you are suggesting that the critical
    relationships between genomic genes that are non additive
    (constitute non additive variation), which however
    constitutes the bulk or "inherited" information that forces
    all genomic genes to be selected at exactly the same,
    single level of selection: the Darwinian fertile organism
    level, and therefore constitute the major componant of
    Darwinian fitness, do not constitute a heritable and thus
    selectable fitness?

    BOH:- Genetic epistatic effects can be inherited (because
    groupds of genes can be inherited together), and hence does
    not come under what I was suggesting.

    JE:- We know and agree that "epistatic effects can be
    inherited" as a testable theory of nature. What is under
    dispute is the use or misuse of quantitative genetics models
    of this theory which delete gene fitness epistasis as
    "heritable" and thus "selectable" information as just a
    simplification and then allow such simplified models to
    compete and win against the theory they were simplified
    from, e.g. Hamilton’s model.

    What is they theory, what is the model, and which has been
    derived from what by what means?

    >>BOH:- John, what is your definition of fitness? I was
    >>specifically describing your definition of fitness, but in
    >>your reply you didn't make any mention of it, so it's not
    >>clear to me how I've misrepresented you.

    >>JE:- It is not how I define it but how Darwin would have
    >>defined it after his implicit assumptions were made
    >>explicit. I have posted what Darwinian fitness is (and the
    >>reverse engineering experiment needed to prove it)
    >>countless times, including, within this thread.
    >>_____________________________________________________
    >>Darwinian fitness is the _total_ number of _fertile_ forms
    >>reproduced by _one_ Darwinian selectee (one fertile form)
    >>within _one_ population.
    >>_____________________________________________________

    > BOH:- OK, so my point is that drift is the difference
    > between observed and [mathematical] expectation of the
    > change in allele frequency (the expectation coming from a
    > model of selection, using the conventional definition of
    > fitness):

    > JE:- The "the conventional definition of fitness" is only
    > relative at just ONE single point in time but the
    > Darwinian definition is an absolute total over a defined
    > TIME FRAME:

    BOH:- The time frame is irrelevant to my argument, and
    discussing it here will just make things even more confused.

    JE:- “The time frame is irrelevant” to your argument?
    Including it will make things MORE confused? Any argument
    about fitness that just deletes a Darwinian fitness TOTAL
    such as Hamiltons is just, hopelessly confused.

    Why do you steadfastly refuse to comment on the experimental
    proof I supplied that that Darwinian fitness is

    4) exactly as I defined it.
    5) the only process that can can halt all selection when
    reversed engineered within a natural population and not
    just a simulated model.
    6) Makes redundant all multi levels of selection, including
    Hamiltons.

    <snip>
    >
    > BOH:- the total number of fertile offspring is the sum of
    > the expected number, and the drift effect.

    > JE:- Because any absolute measure of fitness has to, since
    > it must also include all variation within one evolutionary
    > change. Please note that a relative measure of fitness is
    > not sufficient simply because you cannot differentiate
    > between organism fitness altruism (OFA) and organism
    > fitness mutualism (OFM) using just one relative
    > comparative measure. While it is possible to separately
    > measure the variation caused by random patterns from
    > variation caused by non random patterns, it is not
    > possible to say that a random variation pattern must have
    > been caused by just, a random process. Drift theorists
    > refuse to admit that this is the case and has always been
    > the case throughout the history of science. This is why
    > science throws out random patterns as inconclusive.
    >
    > BOH:- Your definition conflates the effects of selection
    > and drift, by defining fitness in terms of the obseved
    > number. Any random variation in the number of offspring
    > that we would ascribe to drift you would include in the
    > fitness measure, and hence would ascribe to selection.

    > JE:- Yes,

    BOH:- OK, good. This is the point I was trying to make: you
    define fitness in such a way as to include any drift effects
    into it. So, for you drift does not exist, as it's in your
    fitness measure.

    JE:- Your conclusion: “for you drift does not exist, as it's
    in your fitness measure” must separate drift as just a
    _pattern_ from drift as a _process_. Drift as a real random
    process, is never proven but drift as just a random pattern
    has to be assumed. This is because random and non random
    patterns must be able to be separated using statistical
    tests otherwise the unique non ranndom pattern that
    selection causes cannot be varified/refuted in nature.

    Regards,

    John Edser Independent Researcher

    PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

    [email protected]
     
  9. Anon.

    Anon. Guest

    Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
    > "Anon." <[email protected]> wrote in
    > message news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>As for epistasis, if something isn't heritable, then it
    >>can't be inherited. Genetic epistatic effects can be
    >>inherited (because groups of genes can be inherited
    >>together), and hence does not come under what I was
    >>suggesting.
    >
    >
    > Pardon me for butting in, but some time ago I told John
    > that the reason that non-additive epistatic effects are
    > usually omitted from evolutionary models is that such
    > effects are not effectively heritable. Was this incorrect?
    >
    Yes this was - the effects can be inherited, but the
    strength of directional selection is not affected by the non-
    additive epistatic effects.

    This will be explained in Vol. 2 of Lynch & Walsh, if it is
    ever published. But some of the material is here:
    <http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/zbook/volume_2/vol2.html>

    > In saying this, I had in mind the situation in which the
    > two loci are on different chromosomes. I (and John, I
    > think) realize that there is some heritability when the
    > loci are in the same linkage group, but it seems to me
    > that weak linkage cannot be a factor in long term
    > evolution. Strong linkage, of course, might be a factor,
    > but this doesn't argue against the adequacy of the models
    > because a strongly linked cluster of loci can be treated
    > as a single "super-gene" in the additive models.
    >
    The additive by additive component of variation does have an
    effect on selection, but it is transient. See Chapter 4 of
    Lynch & Walsh on the web page above.

    Bob

    --
    Bob O'Hara

    Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
    P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5) FIN-00014 University of
    Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 23743 Mobile:
    +358 50 599 0540 Fax: +358-9-191 22 779 WWW:
    http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/ Journal of Negative
    Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org
     
  10. Guy Hoelzer

    Guy Hoelzer Guest

    in article [email protected], Anon. at
    [email protected] wrote on 6/19/04 3:40 PM:

    > Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
    >> "Anon." <[email protected]> wrote in
    >> message news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >>> As for epistasis, if something isn't heritable, then it
    >>> can't be inherited. Genetic epistatic effects can be
    >>> inherited (because groups of genes can be inherited
    >>> together), and hence does not come under what I was
    >>> suggesting.
    >>
    >>
    >> Pardon me for butting in, but some time ago I told John
    >> that the reason that non-additive epistatic effects are
    >> usually omitted from evolutionary models is that such
    >> effects are not effectively heritable. Was this
    >> incorrect?
    >>
    > Yes this was - the effects can be inherited, but the
    > strength of directional selection is not affected by the
    > non-additive epistatic effects.
    >
    > This will be explained in Vol. 2 of Lynch & Walsh, if it
    > is ever published. But some of the material is here: <htt-
    > p://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/zbook/volume_2/vol2.html>
    >
    >> In saying this, I had in mind the situation in which the
    >> two loci are on different chromosomes. I (and John, I
    >> think) realize that there is some heritability when the
    >> loci are in the same linkage group, but it seems to me
    >> that weak linkage cannot be a factor in long term
    >> evolution. Strong linkage, of course, might be a factor,
    >> but this doesn't argue against the adequacy of the models
    >> because a strongly linked cluster of loci can be treated
    >> as a single "super-gene" in the additive models.
    >>
    > The additive by additive component of variation does have
    > an effect on selection, but it is transient. See Chapter 4
    > of Lynch & Walsh on the web page above.

    An important limitation to the generality of this body of
    theory, as explained by Dr. O'Hara, is that it usually
    assumes no linkage among genes. We know that this assumption
    is generally false, and I think we have yet to come to grips
    with the implications of linkage, and the potential for
    inheritance of coadapted gene complexes (functionally
    coherent linkage groups), as it relates to patterns of
    phenotypic development and natural selection.

    Cheers,

    Guy
     
  11. Anon.

    Anon. Guest

    John Edser wrote:
    >>>>>JE:- Pardon me butting in but.. please state what would
    >>>>>be EXCLUDED from such an _amazingly_ wide acceptance of
    >>>>>what you insist can _scientifically_ constitute
    >>>>>"evolution", i.e. please provide at least one example
    >>>>>of a _non_ evolutionary change within a biological
    >>>>>system.
    >>>>
    >
    >>>BOH:- Any change that isn't heritable.
    >>
    >
    >>>JE:- The above becomes a self fulfilling prophecy when
    >>>genetic epistasis is _defined_ as "inherited" but not
    >>>"heritable" and thus, "selectable".
    >>
    >
    >>BOH:- Huh? From the OED definition of heritable: Naturally
    >>transmissible or transmitted from parent to offspring;
    >>hereditary. You're mixing up being heritable with the
    >>qunatitative genetic concept of "heritability" (=the
    >>proportion of variance in a trait due to additive genetic
    >>variation). They are not the same thing.
    >
    >
    >>JE:- "Heritability" and "heritable" mean the same thing: a
    >>selectable trait. You used the word "heritable" and not
    >>the word "heritability" as in: "Any change that isn't
    >>heritable".
    >
    >
    > BOH:- In genetics and evolutionary biology, they don't
    > mean the same thing. Please try and educate yourself first
    > before making comments like this.
    >
    > JE:- EITHER, something is defined as selectable or it is
    > not so defined. If, according to you, "heritable" and
    > "heritablility" don't mean the same thing, please explain
    > the difference.
    >
    > I was attempting to "try and educate" myself re: the
    > common use of these concepts within Neo Darwinism.

    If you're trying to educate yourself, then please do so by
    asking about things were you are ignorant, rather than
    making statement based on your ignorance.

    However,
    > what I am being taught makes no rational sense. All I can
    > make out is that quantitative genetics _models_ of
    > “heritability” delete non additive variation as
    > "heritable" and thus "selectable" information even though
    > it is actually "inherited".

    I would suggest you read a text-book on the subject - to be
    honest, I see little point in spending my time trying to
    explain this to you, as past (and present) experience shows
    me that you aren't able to follow an argument without
    throwing in your own incorrect interpretations. To whit:

    > JE:- You were suggesting that additive variation was
    > "heritable" and thus "selectable" information but the non
    > additive variation was "non heritable" and thus "non
    > selectable".
    >
    NO! NO! NO! I have never suggested that non-additive
    variation is non-heritable.

    > So, genetic epistasis is actually "inherited" but it is
    > not "heritable"

    For F***s sake! Read what I write - it is heritable and I've
    never claimed anything otherwise.

    Please go away, and read the literature - try Falconer and
    MacKay, for example, or Lynch and Walsh (search for
    "quantiative genetics" on your favourite web-based books
    store!). Once you have educated yourself about what
    quantitative genetics does and does not say (and how it
    defines specific terms, e.g. heritability), then you will be
    in a position to discuss.

    <snip>

    Bob

    --
    Bob O'Hara

    Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
    P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5) FIN-00014 University of
    Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 23743 Mobile:
    +358 50 599 0540 Fax: +358-9-191 22 779 WWW:
    http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/ Journal of Negative
    Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org
     
  12. John Edser

    John Edser Guest

    >>BOH:- Huh? From the OED definition of heritable: Naturally
    >>transmissible or transmitted from parent to offspring;
    >>hereditary. You're mixing up being heritable with the
    >>qunatitative genetic concept of "heritability" (=the
    >>proportion of variance in a trait due to additive genetic
    >>variation). They are not the same thing.

    >>JE:- "Heritability" and "heritable" mean the same thing: a
    >>selectable trait. You used the word "heritable" and not
    >>the word "heritability" as in: "Any change that isn't
    >>heritable".

    > BOH:- In genetics and evolutionary biology, they don't
    > mean the same thing. Please try and educate yourself first
    > before making comments like this.

    > JE:- EITHER, something is defined as selectable or it is
    > not so defined. If, according to you, "heritable" and
    > "heritablility" don't mean the same thing, please explain
    > the difference.

    JE:- AGAIN: EITHER explicitly state they mean the same thing
    OR explain the difference!

    >snip<

    > JE:- what I am being taught makes no rational sense. All I
    > can make out is that quantitative genetics _models_ of
    > “heritability” delete non additive variation as
    > "heritable" and thus "selectable" information even though
    > it is actually "inherited".

    BOH:- I would suggest you read a text-book on the subject -
    to be honest, I see little point in spending my time trying
    to explain this to you, as past (and present) experience
    shows me that you aren't able to follow an argument without
    throwing in your own incorrect interpretations.

    JE:- Either additive and non additive gene fitness
    epistasis were both regarded as constituting heritable and
    thus selectable information within population genetics
    over simplified models, or they are not. Very clearly,
    form the very inception of population genetics
    assumptions, they were NOT.

    >From their very inception, over simplified population
    genetics models of biological theory separated additive
    variation from non additive variation because these
    mathematical models only regarded additive variation as
    constituting a "heritable" and thus "selectable" information
    event even though non additive variation was defined
    _theoretically_ as, "inherited".

    http://instruct.uwo.ca/zoology/441a/hist3.html

    Quote form the above website: "..he [Fisher] laid much of
    the foundation of modern biological statistics (e.g. he
    recommended variance - s2 - squared deviations from the mean
    - as a measure of variation rather than the standard
    deviation, s, since variances are additive when their
    sources are independent) Of direct relevance here, he
    recognised not only that all variation can be partitioned
    into genetic and non-genetic causes, but that, while the
    correlation among siblings is an expression of additive
    (selectable) genetic variance, there is also a genetic
    residue, including the effects of linkage, dominance and
    epistasis."

    The vast bulk of inherited information: non additive
    variation was relegated by Fisher to just "a genetic
    residue" and there it has stayed. Clearly, non testable
    population genetics models are just a vast over
    simplification of testable biological theory,
    i.e. the theory that anything inherited must be heritable
    was over simplified within population genetics models
    to mean anything inherited as just additive variation
    is defined within these models, as heritable. Of course
    these models have real worth. However this worth has
    been terribly diminished via their consistent misuse.

    >snip embarrassing BOH invective<

    Yours,

    John Edser Independent Researcher

    PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

    [email protected]
     
Loading...