jamenegay{at}ra.rockwell.com (Jim Menegay) wrote in
news:bsv5vv$53v$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

> William Morse  wrote in message
> news:... 
>> jamenegay{at}ra.rockwell.com (Jim Menegay) wrote in
>> news:bsfmkr$1kur$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 
 
  
>> > Observe.  My paternal grandfather carried only 1/4 of my genes. 
>> > One would expect that if a person has two children, then that
>> > person would on average pass 1/2 copy of his genome to each child -
>> > that is, his genes would not proliferate.  And, indeed, my paternal
>> > grandfather's genes did not proliferate.  But the 1/4 portion of
>> > his genes that he shares with me DID proliferate.  His children had
>> > 3/8 copy of my genes from him (and another 3/8 copy of my genes
>> > from his wife).  My genes, and apparently only my genes, are lucky
>> > enough to increase their population, even though the total number
>> > of genes of all kinds is not increasing.
 
>> > If anyone can point out the error in my thinking here, I will buy
>> > them a free order of fries.  If they can provide a better name for
>> > this statistical phenomenon than my wife's suggestion of "The
>> > Anthropic Principle", then they will also receive 1/2 off on a
>> > soft-drink or dessert.
 
>> You will have to be more explicit on how you got to the 3/8 number
>> for me to have a chance at increasing my glucoconsumptive success.
 

> The arithmetic is fairly trivial.  My father has 1/2 of my genes, his
> brother has 1/4.  That adds to 3/4.  Yet they inherited those genes
> from my paternal grandparents - half from each.  Half of 3/4 is 3/8.
 
Actually I don't think there is any error in your thinking. Your 
grandfather (in this scenario) had two children. Each of those two 
children shared 1/2 of his genes, but they also shared 1/2 of each 
other's genes. So 1/4 of your grandfather's genes were duplicated, and 
1/4 were lost. Since you are the offspring of one of the children who 
shared those 3/4 remaining genes, your genes (along with those of your 
cousins) are "lucky" - they are 1/2 of the genes which survived. And your 
wife's suggestion of "The Anthropic Principle" is reasonably apt, 
although this might better be considered as the Menegay Corollary to the 
Anthropic Principle. Unfortunately I seem to have missed my change at 
upping my caloric intake, since I could neither point out an error in 
your thinking nor come up with a better name (although there may be one 
that is in common parlance).


> PS. My wife believes that you are confused regarding the third
> "technical" paradox.  Hamilton's "r" is not IBD. 
But the high
> correlation between the genes of Homo and Pan IS IBD, she says.  See
> the post on this thread from Mr. Supplied for confirmation that "r" is
> not IBD.  Also note that a claim that Homo/Pan similarity is not IBD
> would have to suggest some kind of convergent evolution.


A quick check of references on the internet indicates that Hamilton's 
"r" is in fact IBD. The high correlation between DNA sequences in Homo 
and Pan is due to their relatedness. My point was that while  95% of 
their DNA sequence is the same, and while a similarly large proportion of 
their genes are functionally equivalent, very few of their genes will be 
IBD. Using the example above that only 3/4 of your genes will survive 
into the next generation, after ten generations only 3% of  your genes 
will still survive as identical by descent. 

Yours,

Bill Morse
---
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 1/2/04 8:24:02 PM