jamenegay{at}ra.rockwell.com (Jim Menegay) wrote in message
news:...
> William Morse  wrote in message
news:...
> > jamenegay{at}ra.rockwell.com (Jim Menegay) wrote in
> > news:bsfmkr$1kur$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 
> > 
> > > Regarding my second point of perplexity, allow me to restate the
> > > problem.  As I have said, I believe that my luck derives from my
> > > genetics.  I had always thought, though, that luck was a phenotypic
> > > or organism-level phenomenon.  My perplexity is that my geneological
> > > researches have provided evidence that it is the genes themselves that
> > > are lucky!
>  
> > > 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.
> > 
> Mr. Morse,
> 
> 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.
> 
>    Slightly Perplexed.
> 
> 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.

The high correlation between the genes of Homo and Pan is not identity
by descent. Identity in state is more appropriate here. Neither IBD
nor IIS provide us with Hamilton's r.
---
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 3:16:20 PM