Nicholas Thompson emitted this, circa 09-06-12 09:17 PM: > I think it does not matter so long as offspring resemble their parents > differentially. However that comes about .... cultural transmission will > do quite nicely if it is from parent to offspring differentially ... > selection can do its magic. > > However a mutation arises, if a parent shares it with its children, then it > can become the basis of selection. ed
Well, it does matter, I think, because _whether_ an offspring shares a "trait" with its parents could be a question of when the genome changed. I fully understand that _after_ some individual (or population) already _has_ a particular "trait", then it is passed on and either helps the offspring mate or not. That's not the issue. What I don't understand is how evolution can happen at all if all offspring must share all their "traits" with their parents. If that's the case (and we don't equivocate on "trait" or "possess"), then mutation is totally irrelevant to evolution and crossover is all there is. Well, there's another exception, namely mutation in the sperm or egg prior to conception. Then the parents do "possess" the "trait" in some sense... but again that sounds like equivocation on "trait" and "possess". The author of that paper outright states that it is _incorrect_ to say that offspring can have traits the parents don't have. Hence, offspring must always get all their traits from their parents. And that implies (to me) that no new traits will ever arise. So, either the authors statement is too vague or wrong, or I am missing something fundamental. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
