RE: Tests show a human side to chimps

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Nov 15 2000 - 10:39:27 GMT

  • Next message: Gatherer, D. (Derek): "new book"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA12022 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:41:32 GMT
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745B0C@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: Tests show a human side to chimps
    Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:39:27 -0000
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Cheers Derek, v.interesting stuff.

    Vincent

    > ----------
    > From: Gatherer, D. (Derek)
    > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 8:35 am
    > To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
    > Subject: RE: Tests show a human side to chimps
    >
    > Vincent:
    > But won't the net effect of water boiling mean greater survival
    > rates than non-boilers, over a long enough period of time, making it in
    > the
    > end a form of niche construction?
    >
    > Derek:
    > Boiling water would certainly increase survival, especially in infants
    > prone
    > to die from dehydrating enteric diseases like cholera. Rogers, if I
    > remember rightly, does not actually look at it from this point of view, as
    > he is synchronic in his analysis methods, just taking a snapshot of what
    > exists at a certain time and dissecting its structure (influence of
    > Levi-Strauss??).
    >
    > Whether or not boiling changed the genetic composition of the population
    > would depend on the effective population size (written N subscript e in
    > pop
    > gen). A small population losing _any_ members for _whatever_ reason will
    > experience a change in its overall gene pool composition, just by random
    > sampling effects, known in pop gen as 'bottlenecking' or 'founder effect'.
    > That's what happened to the Yuni people in California or the Pitcairn
    > Islanders. Even random accidents have serious evolutionary consequences.
    > But in a larger population it doesn't apply. If cholera kills only
    > non-boilers, and the population is large enough that the boiler and
    > non-boiler sub-groups have the same overall allele frequency, then the
    > partial adoption of the cultural trait will not affect the genetic
    > constitution of the population. In a small population, sampling variation
    > will mean that _any_ 2-way split of the population will produce 2 groups
    > with different gene frequencies - even tossing a coin. Suppose you toss a
    > coin and kill everybody who gets tails. In a population of 20 this will
    > have major consequences in terms of the genetic constitution of the
    > population. In a population of several million, it won't.
    >
    > Likewise boiling. Suppose we just kill all non-boilers. Suppose boiling
    > has no inherent biological survival advantage except that we ruthless
    > exterminate anyone who doesn't do it. Whether or not our terrible actions
    > have an effect at the biological evolutionary level depends entirely on
    > the
    > population size, as above. However, regardless of the genetic
    > consequences
    > (or lack of them), it will have a profound cultural evolutionary effect.
    > Boiling will become virtually universal.
    >
    > That's why genes and culture _can_ be independent replicators. Can - but
    > not necessarily will, of course.
    >
    > Vincent:
    > ..... that doesn't explain how water boiling reached that degree of
    > prevalence in the
    > community in the first place, or why some people took it up and not
    > others.
    >
    > Derek:
    > Health workers from Lima introduced it. That's how it arrived. They were
    > profoundly puzzled about the fact that some villagers didn't take it up
    > and
    > others did. That's when Rogers (who was working for the WHO or UNESCO at
    > the time , I think) arrived.
    >
    > Vincent:
    > Sounds like an interesting study. I don't suppose you have a
    > reference to hand do you?
    >
    > Derek:
    > The Peruvian water boiling stuff is from the first chapter of
    >
    > Rogers, E.M. and Shoemaker, F.F. (1971) Communication of Innovations. A
    > Cross-cultural Approach. 2nd ed. Free Press: New York.
    >
    > For milk drinking, the classic memetic study is:
    >
    > Aoki K (1991) Time required for gene frequency change in a deterministic
    > model of gene-culture coevolution, with special reference to the lactose
    > absorption problem.
    > Theor Popul Biol 1991 Dec;40(3):354-68.
    >
    > Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Science, University of Tokyo,
    > Japan.
    >
    > Abstract is
    > "The time required for gene frequency change under natural selection in a
    > deterministic model of gene-culture coevolution is investigated. A
    > discrete
    > generations model is formulated, and its continuous time approximation is
    > derived. In passing to the continuous time limit, it is assumed that the
    > frequency of the culturally transmitted trait does not change under
    > oblique
    > (between generations) transmission. The system of ordinary differential
    > equations thus obtained are solved, and the dependence on the parameters
    > of
    > horizontal (within generations) transmission and natural selection is
    > examined. The time required is found to be substantially longer when the
    > determination of a phenotypic difference subject to natural selection is
    > partly cultural rather than completely genetic. The predictions are
    > relevant
    > to the possibility of the coevolution of lactose absorbers and milk
    > drinkers
    > in some human populations. Alternative hypotheses are briefly discussed in
    > the light of the theoretical results."
    >
    > and there is also quite a bit in William Durham's book, if I remember
    > rightly.
    >
    > Durham, W.H. (1991) Coevolution: Genes, Culture and Human Diversity.
    > Stanford University Press: Stanford.
    >
    > Durham also has an exhaustive analysis of the genetics and culture of
    > malaria resistance in West Africa, which goes well beyond the rather
    > desultory treatment that gets trotted out in most genetics textbooks.
    > That
    > is really worth a read too.
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
    >

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 15 2000 - 10:43:40 GMT