I'm all for "mixibility".
Russ #3
On Aug 29, 2009, at 7:20 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
It's been 8 months since the publication of "A mixibility theory for
the role of sex in evolution" by Livnat et. al. (PNAS December 16,
2008). But I didn't come across it until very recently. The message
is that sexual reproduction doesn't contribute directly to scaling
fitness peaks. Instead over a period of generations it selects for
genes that work well with a wide range of other genes. (That's what
the "mixibility" in the title refers to.) This in turn leads to
modularity within the genome, which leads to improved evolvability--
since the genes are not so tightly coupled to each other.
This seems like a very different way of understanding the role of
sexual reproduction. I'm surprised that it hasn't generated more
buzz. Or is it just that I haven't been paying attention?
-- Russ
============================================================
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
============================================================
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
