Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 13:34:21 +0200
From: "Gatherer, D. (Derek)" <D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl>
Subject: gene-culture model etc. (still going, sorry)
To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
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