Heads Firmly In The Sand..

[John Edser]

http://www.jsbi.org/pdfs/journal1/IBSB05/IBSB05F024.pdf


"About 60-80 % of gene pairs conserved co-regulation relationships, so
co- regulation between genes are highly conserved even between distantly
related species"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2242816

"The effect of a genetic mutation can depend on the genotype of the
organism in which it occurs. For example, a mutation that is beneficial
in one genetic background might be neutral or even deleterious in
another. The interactions between genes that cause this dependence�known
as epistasis�play an important role in many evolutionary theories.
However, they are difficult to study and remain poorly understood. We
used a novel approach to examine the evolution of interactions arising
between a key regulatory gene, crp, and mutations that occurred during
the adaptation of a bacterium, Escherichia coli, to a laboratory
environment. To do this, we measured the effect of deleting crp on the
expression of all genes in the organism, providing a sensitive measure
to identify new interactions involving this gene. We found that deleting
crp had a dramatic and parallel effect on gene expression in two
independently evolved populations, but much less effect in their
ancestor. An analysis of these changes identified a number of regulatory
genes as candidates for harboring beneficial mutations that could
account for the parallel changes. These findings indicate that epistasis
has played an important role in the evolution of these populations, and
they provide insight into the types of genetic changes through which
epistasis can evolve."

JE:-
Of course, none of the above is true because R.A. Fisher's early 1900's
statistics absolutely deleted all epistasis from evolutionary theory as
non heritable and therefore, non selectable.......


Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

ed...@ozemail.com.au

[William L Hunt]

On Tue, 7 May 2013 00:47:59 -0400 (EDT), John Edser
<ed...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>
>http://www.jsbi.org/pdfs/journal1/IBSB05/IBSB05F024.pdf
>
>
>"About 60-80 % of gene pairs conserved co-regulation relationships, so
>co- regulation between genes are highly conserved even between distantly
>related species"
>
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2242816
>
>"The effect of a genetic mutation can depend on the genotype of the
>organism in which it occurs. For example, a mutation that is beneficial
>in one genetic background might be neutral or even deleterious in

>another. The interactions between genes that cause this dependence-known
>as epistasis-play an important role in many evolutionary theories.

>However, they are difficult to study and remain poorly understood. We
>used a novel approach to examine the evolution of interactions arising
>between a key regulatory gene, crp, and mutations that occurred during
>the adaptation of a bacterium, Escherichia coli, to a laboratory
>environment. To do this, we measured the effect of deleting crp on the
>expression of all genes in the organism, providing a sensitive measure
>to identify new interactions involving this gene. We found that deleting
>crp had a dramatic and parallel effect on gene expression in two
>independently evolved populations, but much less effect in their
>ancestor. An analysis of these changes identified a number of regulatory
>genes as candidates for harboring beneficial mutations that could
>account for the parallel changes. These findings indicate that epistasis
>has played an important role in the evolution of these populations, and
>they provide insight into the types of genetic changes through which
>epistasis can evolve."
>
>JE:-
>Of course, none of the above is true because R.A. Fisher's early 1900's
>statistics absolutely deleted all epistasis from evolutionary theory as
>non heritable and therefore, non selectable.......
>

R. A. Fisher's work on what portion of the genetic variance is
heritable applies only to organisms where sexual recombination takes
places (narrow sense heritablity). With clonal and asexual
reproduction, all gene interactions are passed without change, except
for the occasional mutation (broad sense heritability).
It is like comparing apples and oranges when you argue against
Fisher's work on narrow sense heritability in sexual organsims by
using experimental results from an asexual orgainism, E coli, that has
broad sense heritability.
One of the problems for sex to first get started is overcome this
"recombination load". Any sexual recombination will break up these
favorable epistatic allele combinations that evolve in asexual
populations and initially reduce fitness.
William L Hunt

[John Edser]

wlh...@earthlink.net (William L Hunt) wrote:

> R. A. Fisher's work on what portion of the genetic variance is
> heritable applies only to organisms where sexual recombination takes
> places (narrow sense heritablity). With clonal and asexual
> reproduction, all gene interactions are passed without change, except
> for the occasional mutation (broad sense heritability).

JE:-
Then according to Fisher, Neo Darwinism and yourself, in 2013 and IN
NATURE, epistasis is absolutely heritable without sex but absolutely not
heritable with sex therefore allowing W.D. Hamilton to 100% delete e
within Hamilton's Rule?

[William L Hunt]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:54:15 -0400 (EDT), John Edser
<ed...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>
>
>wlh...@earthlink.net (William L Hunt) wrote:
>
> > R. A. Fisher's work on what portion of the genetic variance is
> > heritable applies only to organisms where sexual recombination takes
> > places (narrow sense heritablity). With clonal and asexual
> > reproduction, all gene interactions are passed without change, except
> > for the occasional mutation (broad sense heritability).
>
>
>JE:-
>Then according to Fisher, Neo Darwinism and yourself, in 2013 and IN
>NATURE, epistasis is absolutely heritable without sex

Yes.

> but absolutely not heritable with sex

No not always. It is recombination and not sex that is the key word.
Sex usually implies recombination is present but that is not always
true. For instance, most of the Y-chromosome has no recombination.
If reproduction is mostly clonal and only sometimes sexual, then even
favorable gene combinations located on different chromosomes may be
maintained in the population depending upon fitness benefit of the
particular gene combination and the frequency of sexual reproduction.
Genes on the same chromosome recombine through "crossing-over" but the
closer thet are physically the less likely this is to happen. Here
again favorable gene combinations may be maintained in the population
depending on the fitness benefit and the rate of crossing-over.

> therefore allowing W.D. Hamilton to 100% delete e
>within Hamilton's Rule?

Remember the e in your formula is "physical epistasis", a unitless
count of gene interactions. Fisher's epistasis is "statistical
epistasis", a variance value with units of the quantitative trait
(lbs, inches, etc). To be precise it is the genetic variance in a
quantitative trait in a population that is not additive.
The two uses of the term "epistasis" have little in common, but
unfortunately they have been given the same term.
William L Hunt

[john...@gmail.com]

>wlh...@earthlink.net (William L Hunt) wrote:
>
> > R. A. Fisher's work on what portion of the genetic variance is
> > heritable applies only to organisms where sexual recombination takes
> > places (narrow sense heritablity). With clonal and asexual
> > reproduction, all gene interactions are passed without change, except
> > for the occasional mutation (broad sense heritability).

>JE:-
>Then according to Fisher, Neo Darwinism and yourself, in 2013 and IN
>NATURE, epistasis is absolutely heritable without sex

Yes.

JE:-
Then the quoted paper refutes this (amazing) theoretical claim since epistasis was clearly demonstrated to only be partly heritable in the prokaryotes studied.

> but absolutely not heritable with sex

WH:-
No not always.

JE:-
Indeed, verifying that epistasis was and remains partly heritable in eukaryotes thereby validating my claim that e cannot be validly, absolutely deleted from Hamilton' Rule, just relatively deleted via explicitly including e in the rule while fixing it to e=1 as a variable simplification:

(r^e)b>c

This simple correction proves Inclusive Fitness to be just an uncorrected, simplified model of Darwinian theory in which e was relatively deleted for convenience, proving The Rule cannot validly replace Darwinian theory as Neo Darwinists have allowed it to do. The net result: Poly centricity cannot replace Darwinian mono centricity.


Any minimal empirically applied Rule must include e with a minimal value of 2, making the rule organism, i.e. NOT gene centric, so demonstrating the rule as originally formulated to be in error by at least 100 per cent. Hamilton's error of omission misrepresents Darwinian evolutionary theory.

> therefore allowing W.D. Hamilton to 100% delete e
>within Hamilton's Rule?

WH:-

Remember the e in your formula is "physical epistasis", a unitless
count of gene interactions.

JE:-
But physical epistasis represents a critical biological reality that is included within Darwinism but excluded from Neo Darwinistic models of Darwinism that have in the past and remain today, misused whenever the model is allowed to replace the the theory it was simplified from.

WH:-

Fisher's epistasis is "statistical epistasis", a variance value with units of the quantitative trait
(lbs, inches, etc). To be precise it is the genetic variance in a
quantitative trait in a population that is not additive.
The two uses of the term "epistasis" have little in common, but
unfortunately they have been given the same term.

JE:-
This is why Fisher's mathematical representation of e cannot validly replace the physical reality represented by e as Neo Darwinists have allowed it to do. Statistics can only be abstractly employed to help make sense of a theory it cannot be used to create an abstract reality to conveniently replace empirical reality. The ongoing misuse of Fisher makes about as much sense as somebody suggesting that, since not a single individual can be observed to exactly fit the average person, people do not exist...

Regard,