[Fwd: Re: Predictions]

From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Oct 16 2003 - 22:35:13 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Fw: Huttonism"

    I forward this post by David Campbell. I had not
    intended for it to be off list.

    -------- Original Message --------
    Subject: Re: Predictions
    Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:44:12 -0400
    From: "bivalve"
    <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
    Reply-To: <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
    To: Walter Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>

    >Would you have any simple examples of the computer simulations such as might run on a home PC?<

    I think I sent to you a copy of a DOS program that
    models genetic drift about two years ago. I think
    I included in the program a variable for selective
    pressure on the alleles. I do not personally have
    anything else handy, but the basic parameters are
    simple enough so that I think there would be a lot
    of programs available.

    >Also what do you think of genetic algorithms which attempt to mimic evolution in various optimization tasks of physical objects?<

    I think they give a good illustration of the basic
    principles of evolution. Obviously, the
    parameters of the algorithm would determine
    whether it is a very realistic model of the actual
    course of evolution in a particular case.

    >I was reading some (simplified) discussions of genetic drift. It sounded like it was unclear as to whether that is more important than natural selection. If it is, would that not modify what you say here?<

    To some degree, the relative importance is moot.
    No fatal mutation will get anywhere with genetic
    drift, because the selective pressure against it
    is so high, and strongly positive or negative
    selective factors will push genetic drift pretty
    effectively. However, even a very positive or
    very negative trait has some chance of
    establishment through genetic drift. Thus, I'm
    not sure how well they can be separated to single
    out one as the most important for all of
    evolution. On the other hand, in particular cases
    one or the other may be identifiable as playing
    the greater role.

    I don't think it changes the overall picture of
    evolution as the net result of a complex set of
    forces. It does present a challenge to the
    extreme adaptionist picture, because it shows that
    features may be established largely by random
    factors if there is no strong selective pressure
    either way. Studies of molecular evolution
    largely take drift into account by analyses that
    look for bias in the pattern of change (e.g., a
    high rate of change that affects the gene product
    suggests selection is playing a big role; change
    that emphasizes the DNA bases that have no effect
    suggests that drift is dominant, with some
    selective constraint imposed by the gene
    function).

    (I did not reply to the list because it looked as
    though you replied directly to me; if you want
    something discussed on the list, you can forward
    it there.)

        Dr. David Campbell
        Old Seashells
        University of Alabama
        Biodiversity & Systematics
        Dept. Biological Sciences
        Box 870345
        Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
        bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com

    That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of
    a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of
    Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 16 2003 - 22:35:39 EDT