jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net (Jim Menegay) wrote in message
news:...
> jimmcginn{at}yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message
news:...
> > jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net (Jim Menegay) wrote 
> > 
> > > > jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net (Jim Menegay) wrote 
> > > > > Notice that if r is computed by IBD, then if the
frequency of the 
> > > > > gene in the population is 10% and the frequency in
me is 100%, then
> > > > > the frequency in my full sibs is 55%.  On the
other hand, if the
> > > > > frequency in the population is 90%, and my
frequency is again 100%,
> > > > > then the frequency in my sibs is 95%.
> > > > 
> > > > On average, yes.  But what's your point.  This is simple 
> > > > statistics.
> > > > 
> > > >   Regardless of the frequency of
> > > > > the gene in the population, the Wright-Hamilton
definition of r
> > > > > provides an interpolation factor placing my
relative between me and
> > > > > the population.
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah, so?
> > > 
> > > The point is that Hamilton's theory says that my tendency to be 
> > > altruistic toward my brother is the same whether I should expect
> > > him to share the gene at the 55% level or the 95% level.
> > 
> > I must be completely missing your point.  I don't see 
> > how Hamilton's theory says specifically this. 
> 
> Really? It seems pretty clear to me that with the formula rb>c
> and with r being calculated by IBD (in the absense of inbreeding)
> that the frequency of the gene in the population plays no part
> in it.

You lost me here.  I can't make any sense of this.  Honestly.

> 
> Of course, you have to understand that by "tendency to be altruistic"
> I mean the ratio of b/c that is the threshold for positive
> selection.  

Isn't this to state the obvious?

The question of the speed with which the gene spreads
> in the population is another matter, but you should have no trouble
> working that out if you recall that Hamilton [1964] proved a variant
> of Fisher's fundamental theorem for inclusive fitness.  The gene 
> spreads fastest when my brother's expectation for the gene is 75%,
> in my artificial haploid example.
> 
> > More troubling is the fact that your premise--from what I 
> > can tell--does not appear to be confirmed by reality.
> 
> If you are referring to my assumption of haploid genomics and no
> inbreeding, then I assure you that Hamilton made no such assumptions.
> Hence his algebra is much more complicated than mine.
> 
> If you are questioning whether Hamilton's theory is empirically
> borne out, then your guess is (literally) as good as mine. 


This is my point, for me it's not a guess.  It's simply a matter of
rationality applied.

 I have
> not done much reading in this area.

It's not something that reading about will make you better at. 
There's a certqin rational instinct that can't be taught.

> [snip]
> > > 
> > > Elsewhere on this thread, McGinn wrote:
> > > 
> > > > When a truly rational understanding of 
> > > > relatedness is adopted it becomes plainly apparent 
> > > > that Hamilton's rule (and the other neo-darwinistic 
> > > > variations thereof) has to do with overcoming a 
> > > > nonexistent problem.  
> > > 
> > > Presumably, this "rational understanding of relatedness" is
> > > different from Hamilton's (originally Wright's).
> > 
> > Of course.
> > 
> > > Is this
> > > "rational understanding" written down anywhere, so that it
> > > can be subjected to critical scrutiny and experimental test?
> > 
> > What's amazing about evolutionary biology is that it 
> > is so ensconced in pseudo-scientific mysticism that it 
> > often becomes necessary to explain the obvious.  
> > 
> > The root of the word rational is ratio, which means to 
> > measure.  Suppose somebody were to dump a pile of rocks 
> > on your desk of different sizes, shapes, composition and 
> > ask you to describe their relatedness.  Is it not obvious 
> > that the only thing you can do is to begin measuring.  
> > You'd measure their size, weight, density, chemical 
> > composition, heat, hardness, and any and all criteria.  
> > The resulting data could then be employed to designate the 
> > ways and degrees the rocks are related.  Would the same 
> > rational methods not be applicable to biological entities?
> 
> I take this response to mean, "No, it is not written down, and
> I have no intention of doing so in the near future".

You're asking me to write the obvious.

  No 
> matter.  From your hints, I'm guessing that you would measure
> relatedness by sequencing the genome of donor and recipient

This would be one objective measure.  

 and
> then performing some fairly obvious algebraic manipulations.
> Except, particularly after your recent criticisms of Dawkins, it
> is not clear to me just what level of granularity you would use.
> It is even less clear to me how you would use this measure of
> relatedness in a pop gen model.

basic math, statistics.  There's nothing new in any of this.

  If you do decide to write down
> and publish your ideas, I would be honored if you would include
> me in your preprint list.
> 
> You may be interested to learn that a procedure much like this can
> be used to *measure* Hamilton's "r", except that you will have to
> sequence a third genome

Third genome?  Clue me in here.  What on God's sweet earth is, "a
third genome."

 - which Bill Hunt, in another post on this
> thread, has referred to as the baseline.  This is well explained in
> the following paper, which I strongly recommend:
> "A geometric view of relatedness", 

As an unrepentant reductionists I have to admit I like the title. 
I'll check it out.  Give me a week or two.

Alan Grafen, 1985
> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~grafen/cv/oseb.pdf


Jim
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 4/13/04 3:48:23 PM