PhDP

The problem is; - Natural selection (and this is a strong argument against creationism) cannot plan in advance. It can push species in evolutionary dead ends, lead to the fixation of allele which would be deleterious in the long run, et cetera... - Natural selection is not always there, it can be overwhelmed by drift, draft, mutational pressure... So I do think we should look at genome and modify it and perhaps we could start producing our own vitamin C again. Technically speaking, this is not true, but it's fair to say that Darwinian selection is probably involved in pretty much all cases of adaptation.

I think we have very little reason to believe in the adaptive value of religious ideas, they are, in my opinion, by-products of brain function.

Let's say you have disease caused by a recessive allele "a" and you know that a proportion 'X' of people have the disease (let say; 0.01, or 1%), what is the frequency 'p' of the allele 'a' ? Using the HW law you have; [math]AA = (1-p)^2[/math] [math]Aa = 2pq[/math] [math]aa = p^2 = X\mbox{, } p = \sqrt{X} = 0.1[/math] So, assuming the allele is in HW equilibrium, the frequency of 'a' is 0.1 or 10%. In truth, the assumptions are likely wrong here, first because of migration, but also because many evolutionary forces could act on this allele. Still, the HW could be good enough. I shouldn't have said that it never worked in the real world, what I meant was that the underlying assumptions were likely wrong most of the time, but they can provide good estimates. A more interesting application would be to detect nonrandom mating, for example if a population always, systematically deviate from the expected equilibrium while the frequency of the allele remain constant. Or if positive selection occurs, you could use the equation to calculate the change in frequency of the allele just by looking at the evolution of the phenotype.

It does... but it doesn't require the population to be small, on the contrary, if the population size is too small drift will get in the way. There are many important things to learn with the HW model; the frequencies will reach a stable equilibrium after one generation; you can track allele frequencies with the phenotype frequencies; even recessive alleles won't disappear (it wasn't so obvious back then)... Of course, the main point of the HW model is that it doesn't work in the real world, because of selection, drift, migration, nonrandom mating, and it's why it's such an important model, it gives us the expected frequency in the absence of those forces.

...but I'm curious to know why exactly you both don't like JAVA. It's quite popular, it does offer some improvements over C and it's getting more efficient. I don't like it either and I will probably learn C to improve the speed of my Python programs, but I wonder why so many people snub JAVA. Why ? I didn't know that, I thought it was still quite common. As a side note, I wonder why MatLab is so popular. It's really not that great, unless you badly need some of their packages. But the fact is; it's not cheap and Python does about the same thing... and it's free, and much faster with Pyrex ...

Why don't you like JAVA ? And what about C# ? And I'm surprised Fortran is not on the list, it's very common in the scientific community (certainly more than Haskell & Erlang).

"Arithmetic" is pre-algebra, and algebra is pre-calculus So, you should probably try to learn basic algebra. These two websites seem quite good; http://www.themathpage.com/ http://mathforum.org/precalc/precalc.html Good luck with your studies

C++'s slogan: Hard to learn and built to stay that way. ...from an introductory book to Python, which has become in less than a week my favorite language. I also know "math" languages; Octave/MatLab, Maple, a little bit of Mathematica and SAGE (which is, basically, Python for maths).

SkepticLance. We defined "hypermales" and "good fathers" based on their morphology. "Masculized faces" and "feminized faces", respectively. This simple trait is linked with several other physiological and behavioral characteristics. You can't do both.

Paralith, I'm talking about humans, different animals have different mating strategies. But for humans, the "best of both world" hypothesis is a fairytale, by definition, it cannot work with genetic monogamy being so high. Can it work in some cases ? Yes, perhaps, probably, but it's not good enough to create a substantial pressure. Well, for humans, it does. If genetic monogamy is low, then males are going to pass their genes through by having children in more or less serious relationships, and hypermales are considered by women to be least attractive in this aspect. So, yes, the success of a strategy based on infidelity depends on a low level of genetic monogamy. For many animals, males fight for females, the large one usually dominate the others and gets to mate with many females, in this case the "hypermale" strategy is going to dominate. It doesn't work that way for us, both social and genetic monogamy is too high (about sexual monogamy, it's harder to evaluate). I perfectly know that, males are scared to death of EPCs, they would have to invest a huge amount of energy for nothing if their wife would get pregnant by another male (from the point of view of evolution). But whatever the reason; genetic monogamy is low, it doesn't mean men are not going to be scared of EPCs, it doesn't mean it won't shape several of our behaviors, but it does mean a strategy relying on EPCs is doomed to be weak, how on earth could it work if those EPCs aren't translated into children ? My point is only that the success of this strategy is low and has been low for a long time, and it's probably going to get ever lower. Genetic monogamy, even outside Occident, is not very high. Birth control is, IMO, another problem for the hypermale strategy, but the evolution toward the "good father" strategy must've started a long time ago, I only think it's going to get a lot worst for hypermales in the coming centuries (also, the even greater importance of education is likely not going to help either). Actually, I'm not saying their findings are wrong, in fact I think they are right. I just think it's not relevant to our evolution because women have, most of the time, their children with their regular partner... Your numbers must be wrong, because the exact opposite is happening. Mating strategies are very diverse, even within a species, some women certainly prefer hypermales, heck, some women are even attracted to serial killers or mathematicians (that's as crazy as you can get)...

I really like this topic, unfortunately, it's quite hard to have a cold, rational discussion about this in the "real world". Just as a convention, I'll use hypermales for "mascualinized males" and "good fathers" for "feminized males", to make the distinction clear between the two strategies... Also, I won't quote Paralith but I'll answer her points. I read many studies about this, but it comes down to this, hypermales will be more fit than good father iff; 1.1 Women start relationships based on this, which is not the case because we know women prefer good fathers for long-term relationships. 1.2 Women get into relationships with good fathers, but cheat on them to have children from hypermales. For some obscure reasons, the hypothesis #2 is often cited, but I never found any serious argument in favour of #2. It doesn't make any sense for two good reasons; 2.1 Women might feel attracted to hypermales at some point in their cycle, but it only matters if they actually cheat on their husband, and if they get pregnant. I think it's a good case of a just-so story, some have assumed that if women were attracted to hypermales at some point in their cycle, it was to get the best of both world, a good father and "good genes". It makes sense, but in the real world it leads to two predictions; 2.1.1 Genetic monogamy must be low. It's very hard to estimate sexual monogamy, but it's very easy to estimate genetic monogamy, and it is ridiculously high, close to 100% in Occident. So, in practice, women don't get "the best of both world", they do have children with their husband, not with strangers. This is the main problem with the "best of both world hypothesis". 2.1.2 Women cheats more on their husband if they are "good fathers". I don't think this is true. Actually, I'm not a specialist, but I think women often cheat on their husband because they feel their partner is not sensible to their need, because they have trouble communicating. These are exactly the traits that women tend to associate with hypermales. 2.2 Also, it doesn't make sense because it would assume that hypermales are more fit, and they obviously are not. The current trend is toward feminization, the "good father" strategy is clearly winning. In fact, some people think that male homosexuality is caused by this strong pressure toward feminization.

Lucaspa, I'll answer your post, but first I want to write a little note about the history of my field. I always find these discussions about drift quite funny. The fact is; nobody believe in drift. Except a small group of people; those who actually study it, that is; theoretical population geneticists and molecular evolutionary biologists, those concerned with how the different mechanisms of evolution shape life. The most funny thing is that drift, and the neutral theory, has achieved such a dominance over population genetics in a short period of time, yet nobody knows about this. Why ? Because it's actually quite complicated, the maths are not always easy to follow for those with no training in math. and it's counter intuitive (probably the key issue, deterministic selection is much easier to understand). In the last couple of years (actually, about 15 years) the neutral theory has been challenged, and I think it will fall, if it's not already done, but there is no way, simply no way we will get back to this naive view that evolution can be explained by the simple pseudo-equation "evolution = variation (mutation) + selection". If we want evolution to be taken seriously, we'll have to stop whining about creationists and try to teach our theory correctly, and it implies, in my opinion, a bigger emphasis on the foundation of evolution; population genetics, and a more realistic description of the natural selection. Now back to business... About "selection" vs "selection + drift". If you talk about the probability of fixation, you have to discuss drift (and draft, but that's another issue). Evolution is a stochastic process, not a deterministic one. When you use a deterministic equation with only selection to make a point that any mutation with s>0 will reach fixation, you are making a huge mistake. First of all, it is NOT an equation used to discuss probability of fixation, and as I previously explained, s>0 is no guarantee that the mutation isn't neutral (just look at the definition of "neutral"). You were trying to make a point about the probability of fixation when you said any mutation with s>0 will reach fixation, yet you used an equation which has nothing to do with this. When you say "The equations are clear that, looking at selection, the inevitable effect of positive selection (s > 0) is to fix an allele (mutation) in the population." It's completely off the mark. If you're talking about the near-inevitability of fixation for a mutation with a large effect (s>>1/2N), and if the mutation is already established in the population, then yes, you can ignore drift. But this is not frequent, s = 0.1 might seem small, but it's actually much larger than most beneficial mutations (just take a look at Lynch's new book on the evolution of the genome, 2007). In short, your equation is completely irrelevant to this question, and yes, population size matters. I completely agree that it doesn't always matter, it's actually a quite complicated debate, but you can't completely ignore it as you do. It's only clear because you don't use the right equation. Remember, we're talking about evolution, we're talking about fixation, we're not talking about an idealized world with only selection. About the average time to fixation; You can have fixation with s<0. You can have extinction with s>0. The higher the 's', the more likely you are to witness fixation. But this has nothing to do with the average time to fixation. Your claim that the time to fixation (if fixation there is, as I said) depends on 's' = it's wrong, the time to fixation depends on '|s|', and I pointed this out because it's an interesting result of theoretical population genetics. Most people assume, as you did, that the average time to fixation must always be longer when 's' is least beneficial. About drift you said; As always; it depends on the value of 's'. If s is close to 0, then drift will matters, even if the size of the population is very high, and the substitution rate will be constant, so the time to fixation won't really matter.

Is it even possible to have a discussion in the Politics forum; - Without ad hominem (that is; no accusation of being biased or "PC") - With no strawmen ("Bush-packed", I said that ?) - With no anecdotal evidences presented as the Truth (who cares about death penalty to rapist, Kennedy is the swing vote now, he's more conservative than the last swing vote, but he's quite liberal about death penalty). ? But here's the thing; Bush replaced a moderate and a conservative with two conservatives. The next president will probably have to replace liberal justices. Just look at what happened in the Roberts court, first of all, it's already more conservative than it was with O'Connor, and look at how many decisions are split 4-5, if you replace any of the liberal justices with conservatives, it would have a tremendous impact on the court. I'm not buying the "Bush' third term" slogan launched by the Obama campaign to discredit McCain, but when it comes to national security and social issues, McCain is indeed very close to Bush.

Don't tell me you name your pets after ancient divinities ? It's so lame. And geeky. ... yea, I do this too. Currently I have a dog called Mercury, and two cats; Hades and Freya (daughter of my two previous cats; Odin and Frigg), and I just lost a cat named Demeter (Freya's daughter).

Lucaspa, Nonsense. The importance of drift (as shown in the equation I wrote there) depends on 'N' and 's'. If 's' is very low (and it often is, BTW), then drift will be important even in large populations. If 's' is very high, then even a population size of 50 could be too much for drift to matter. I have no idea where you got the number "50", but I would really like to know where you got that. Futuyma for calculation ? I highly doubt he derived the necessary equations for the reasoning I made, which is based on the diffusion approximation. Futuyma's book is a very good introduction, but it's a very elementary introduction. Technically, it's true. But you completely missed my point. I'm not talking about adaptation, I'm talking about the perils related to the fixation of slightly deleterious alleles. Selection is very ineffective against them in small populations (again, just look at the equations!). Lynch called this one of the genomic peril of evolving large body size; we're vulnerable to these dangerous mutations. However, because of our technology we managed to reach a very high population size, much higher than expected for animals of our size.

Lucaspa, The lower the s, the longer it will take = intuitive, but wrong. The lower the |s|, the longer it will take = Counter intuitive, but true. Yep, the average time to fixation is the same for s = 0.1 and s = -0.1, even if the latter is deleterious (but, of course, the probability of fixation is higher for s = 0.1). ...and that's why evolution cannot be correctly understood without a healthy dose of mathematics.

I'm surprised nobody is talking about this, it's a major issue. We all know what will happen if McCain get elected president; the most liberal justices will be appointed by a pro-life president.

Well, I would have to look at my references, but from what I can remember, in most societies the rate of genetic monogamy was above 90%, I think it's close to 98% in Occident. And even 10% is, in fact, not that much, in truth, it's very low... My personal guess is that the 'bad boy' strategy targets female of low quality. Women are generally not willing to sleep with anyone, but women with low self-esteem are much more likely to do so. Lastly, I think modern society is fundamentally hostile to this kind of strategy; contraception and the emphasis on education are certainly not going to help.

I'm a big nonfollower of Dawkins, and I like to remind people that he invented the name "selfish theory", but the theory itself was invented by George C. Williams

I'm not disputing the result, but I don't think it has any broad implication. Genetic monogamy, which is, in a way, the only relevant form of monogamy, is ridiculously high for humans and women tend to favor men with "feminized" faces (related to good parenting skills). Also, there is the question of quality, why would an intelligent, beautiful, confident woman be satisfied by these so-called 'bad boys' ?

What I meant was; some evolutionary theorists see selection/drift/mutations/[insert mechanism] as forces acting on the genetic structure of a population. I do. Of course, we have to be careful about this kind of metaphor, but I think it's apt as long as you keep in mind the statistical nature of these 'forces'.

I'm not sure you know enough about evolution, what on earth is that;

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." ~ Einstein But you forget that he also said Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms., and I could not agree more IMO, we're much too gentle with those kind of beliefs.

If it's so simple perhaps you can solve the Great Obsession, or perhaps you can explain how the different forces act on the genetic structure of population on the long term ? The fact is, many people here think evolution is what you described, but in truth, it's much more complicated. I'd follow Lynch and say that if we have so much trouble with creationists, it's because we've created a strawman of evolution and got rid of all the maths. That sentence doesn't make any sense, there is no such thing as a pinnacle of evolution.