Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!bionet!GENETICS.WASHINGTON.EDU!joe From: joe@GENETICS.WASHINGTON.EDU (Joe Felsenstein) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Average Fitness, Evolution of Sex and Others Message-ID: <9010162206.AA06209@evolution.genetics.washington.edu> Date: 16 Oct 90 22:06:49 GMT References: <9010151827.AA00877@genbank.bio.net> Sender: daemon@genbank.bio.net Lines: 44 In comment on Xia's posting on: > Average of Fitness, Evolution of Sex and Others > =============================================== > In the example of two alleles with fitnesses (X+s):X in one generation and (X-s):X in the next, the assumption is implicit that both alleles have the same arithmetic mean fitness. But if they don't, then it is not obvious which one will win out without computing the geometric means. For example, if one generation the alleles have fitnesses X(1+2s) : X and in the other X/(1+s) : X, then the MORE variable one wins since (1+2s)/(1+s) > 1. > (BTW, the above simple formulation is the foundation of the so-called > bet-hedgeing in life-history theory.) > A corollary of the theorem is that any gene that reduces fitness > variability of its carier will be favoured by natural selection. So it is not just a matter of bet-hedging: if there is a cost of bet-hedging then it can be selected against. > The gene for sexual reproduction is such a gene, it reduces the > fitness variation of its carrier 1.414 (=square root of 2) times. If the square root of two is based (as I suspect) on the fact that there is a two-fold cost of sexual reproduction, then this won't work as the reduction of mean is too great to make the reduction of variance worhtwhile. > (Please let me know if my writing is interesting so that I won't > keep posting things that you do not read.) > Do keep it up. ---- Joe Felsenstein, Dept. of Genetics, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 Internet/ARPANet: joe@genetics.washington.edu (IP No. 128.208.128.1) Bitnet/EARN: felsenst@uwalocke UUCP: ... uw-beaver!evolution.genetics!joe