Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 12:16:58 +0200
From: "Gatherer, D. (Derek)" <D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl>
Subject: FW: gene-ulture model etc (still going, sorry)
To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gatherer, D. (Derek)
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 10:19 AM
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: gene-ulture model etc (still going, sorry)
>
> I'm sorry to keep going on about this Aaron (I will finally shut up soon I
> promise), but I can't let such bad genetics pass. I may get flamed for
> credentialism (I have in the past, by others and not by you I hasten to
> add) but now you are on my territory. I don't mean the territory I may or
> may not have carved out for myself in memetics, but the genetic territory
> in which I was raised. I would defer to your opinion on physics for
> instance.
>
> You say:
>
> >I do not say that the taboo can
> >make such a gene rise from *any* prevalence level. I especially do not
> say
> >that it can make prevalence rise from present levels, just from lower
> >levels that may have existed millennia ago, prior to the taboo. Nor,
> >incidentally, do I assume that there is *one* gene involved, but that
> >perhaps many genes of, say, a combined q of .1 could rise to a combined q
> >of .2 and quadruple the rate of repressed homosexuality. The math I have
> >done on this indicates that the taboo can indeed increase the prevalence
> of
> >such genes. However, I continue to see only more reasons not want to
> >publish such material as part of a listserver argument with you. It
> belongs
> >in a suitable paper.
>
> I can't let that pass without further comment because it shows how little
> evolutionary genetics you understand. I'm not just being bitchy or
> score-settling, honestly. I'm genuinely worried that you are, as someone
> who is still seen as a major representative of the memetics movement,
> going to go sailing into an area where evolutionary geneticists (many of
> whom are even more savage than I am) are going to rip you to shreds, and
> the reputation of memetics along with you.
>
> In detail:
>
> >I do not say that the taboo can
> >make such a gene rise from *any* prevalence level. I especially do not
> say
> >that it can make prevalence rise from present levels, just from lower
> >levels that may have existed millennia ago, prior to the taboo.
>
> but it can't make the prevalence rise from any levels; present levels,
> past level, whatever level you choose, there is no way a taboo will cause
> any rise because at best it can only reduce s to zero, and therefore delta
> q to zero. so to say 'just from lower levels that may have existed
> millenia ago' is no escape. If you go into print with this, you will get
> destroyed.
>
> and further:
>
> >Nor,
> >incidentally, do I assume that there is *one* gene involved, but that
> >perhaps many genes of, say, a combined q of .1 could rise to a combined q
> >of .2 and quadruple the rate of repressed homosexuality.
>
> No, here you are making a glaring error. You cannot combine the q of
> several genes to make a combined q. q is a frequency at one locus. They
> are non-additive unless they refer to the same locus. This is the branch
> of genetics known as QTL theory. In brief, if each locus contributed to
> homosexuality then selection would be acting on each one individually -
> each would have its own value of s, and each would have its own value of
> delta q, and each always negative.
>
> The math I have
> >done on this indicates that the taboo can indeed increase the prevalence
> of
> >such genes. However, I continue to see only more reasons not want to
> >publish such material as part of a listserver argument with you. It
> belongs
> >in a suitable paper.
>
> I cannot believe that your calculations can be correct. Have you used
> Hardy-Weinberg and QTL? Your epidemiological-type differential equations
> won't work for genes. You have to use the standard maths. (I mean, If I
> wanted to prove something in relativity theory, I'd be obliged to use some
> of Einstein's equations, likewise fro genetics) Obviously I can't comment
> specifically on your equations since you won't let me see them, but given
> that you are making elementary errors like trying to add q at 2 loci to
> make a 'combined q' I am not filled with confidence.
>
> Please Aaron, let a geneticist check your equations before you submit them
> to a journal.
>
> Okay, that's all. I won't say anything more on the subject.
>
===============================================================
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