>snip<
>> JE:-
>> The above argument cuts both ways. If up to 5%% of the 387 of the 95%%
> certain
>> selected genes are not in fact selected then about 20 pieces of this
>> incredibly tiny amount of _critical heritable information_ may have to
> be
>> subtracted leaving only 367 bits. If we add the 50 extra that you
> calculated
>> then this produces the grand total of 417 pieces of heritable
> information.
>> If we make this an even 1000 to allow for inevitable errors, it should
> be
>> obvious that not enough heritable (additive) information, exists to be
> able
>> to explain the enormous phenotypic difference that can be observed to
> exist
>> between chimps and ourselves ...
>
> Well, it is obvious to you and ReMine. Not obvious to me, though.
> Remember,
> we only need to explain the *selective* differences. Differences like
> shape
> of nostrils may well be due to drift.
Yes, but nobody appears to be estimating (let alone measuring) how many
_selected phenotypes_ differ between man and chimp because population
genetics remains entirely oversimplified gene centric. An estimate should
not be so difficult. We have _enormously_ long lists of phenotypes which can
be correlated to single genes for both species. If nostril shape is deemed
not to have been selected then it can be crossed off a list of selected
phenotypes. My point is: an ancient Apple 2 computer has more additive
information than the difference between ourselves and a chimp. I mean a
chimp cannot create the music of Bach, the theories of Einstein, Darwin and
Mendel. How can it possibly to reasonably argue that less than 1k bits of
heritable information separate us from a chimp? How can you possibly create
the brain of man that can write the music of Bach simply by adding just 1K
bits of additive information to the brain of a chimp?
>> (note that 1000 is well within Haldane's
>> calculated limit) given current population genetics
>> simplifications/oversimplifications. My point remains simple enough:
> Only
>> one way I know of allows this information to become adequate: allow a
>> minority of the enormous number non additive gene associations to be
> deemed
>> conservable and therefore, selectable. If you allow just 500 selected
> gene
>> difference between man and chimp such that each and every one of these
>> critical genes remain non additively associated to just one other this
>> allows 500^2 = 250,000 pieces of heritable information using a standard
> 2n
>> genotype. If just 20%% of this is actually conservable over generations
> then
>> 50,000 missing pieces of heritable information are being ignored (larger
>> than the known human or chimp coding genome!) only because of
> unrelenting
>> dogma. Perhaps you or somebody else here can provide a better solution?
> As
>> things stand, Fisher's population genetics foundation that non additive
> gene
>> associations cannot be conserved so they cannot be selected has to be
>> revised in light of the extraordinary tiny size of the human and chimp
>> genomes and the miniscule number of selected genes that are different
>> between them. Since Fisher's proposition was just a modeling
>> oversimplification this should be a simple task.
JE:-
The above argument is both reasonable and essential. I would have
appreciated a comment for or against. What solution do you propose? Do you
really think this problem will just go away if you ignore it?
>>> The other issue is that they were only looking at protein-coding
> genes.
>>> It is likely that there were also regulatory changes which were
> positively
>>> selected - things like enhancers and promoters of transcription.
>>> Unfortunately,
>>> it is not so easy to distinguish selected from non-selected for these
>>> kinds
>>> of changes, so they didn't even try.
>> JE:-
>> I agree entirely. However, as far as current population genetics dogma
> is
>> concerned they are all just "junk".
> Not true at all. No one believes that all non-coding DNA is junk. (Though
> you wouldn't know it by reading the press releases of whoever finds a
> function for some piece of non-coding DNA. The press release will claim
> that everyone else thinks non-coding DNA is junk, but our hero has just
> proven otherwise!)
JE:-
Let me put this another way: to my knowledge non coding DNA has not been
incorporated into Fishers and Haldane's basic population genetics equations.
If it has, then please provide a documented example.
>> You may note that regulatory changes
>> such as "enhancers and promoters of transcription" are non additive in
> their
>> action.
> No they are not.
JE:-
We disagree. Please provide an example to settle the matter.
>> IOW none of these gene associations can be considered heritable and
>> selectable within population genetics even if this was acknowledged.
> John, you really need to do some reading so that you can begin to use
> 'additive' in the same way as everyone else.
JE:-
But I am using "'additive' in the same way as everyone else". If the
association between no coding DNA and coding DNA remains non additive then
it is not conserved but if it is additive than it is. Correct?
>>>>> But you seem to be trying to separate heritable genetic
> information
>>> into
>>>>> additive and non-additive. I'm not sure that makes sense.
>>>> JE:-
>>>> But this (as you stated yourself) remains a "standard" population
>>> genetics
>>>> procedure. You stated that not additive gene associations are not
>>> conserved
>>>> but additive associations, are.
>>> Which means that the non-additive is not heritable. You are trying to
>>> find
>>> a non-additive component in the heritable information.
>> JE:-
>> No, I am strongly suggesting that if genes can be individually selected
> (the
>> basis of selfish geneism providing organism fitness altruism within
> today's
>> gene centric population genetics models) then this becomes
> _contradicted_ by
>> the empirical fact that not a single additive gene fitness has been
>> documented in nature, no matter how you define fitness. The gene centric
>> population geneticists cannot have it both ways: claim individual genes
> are
>> selected using Fisher's additive epistasis dogma while failing to
> produce a
>> single instance of any additive gene fitnesses existing within nature.
> If
>> all gene _fitnesses_ remain non additive then they cannot be conserved
> so
>> they cannot be individually selected (using Fisher's own rationale).
> Because
>> a gene additively contributes to a polygenetic effect (as discussed
> below)
>> this does not mean that that each contributing gene's fitness must also
> be
>> polygenetic. Far from it, not a single polygenetic trait has provided an
>> empirical polygenetic fitness (the fitness of each gene can simply be
> added
>> up to produce the empirical fitness of said trait), no matter how you
> define
>> fitness.
JE:-
Again, the above argument remains critical. I would have appreciated a
comment, for or against.
>>>> I stated that this contradicts basic
>>>> mathematics which clearly states that no difference exists between
>>> addition
>>>> and non addition. So, the critical difference that you stated above
> has
>>> to
>>>> be NON mathematical. Correct? Would you please explain what the
>>> critical
>>>> NON mathematical difference is between "additive" and "non
> additive".
>
>>> I repeat: Get a textbook. Find out what population geneticists mean
> when
>>> they talk about 'additive'.
>>>
>>> "You keep using that word ['additive']. I don't think it means what
> you
>> think it means." - Inigo Montoya in "The Princess Bride".
>> JE:-
>> Jim, I am not asking for "text book" extracts, I am asking your candid
>> opinion.
JE:-
What you snipped included important standard references. It appears to me
you do not wish to debate these issues in an _unbiased_ way.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@
ozemail.com.au
E-mail message checked by PC Tools Spyware Doctor (
5.0.0.182)
Database version: 5.07180
http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/
