Xref: utzoo sci.psychology:164 sci.bio:1056
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!oddjob!ncar!ames!oliveb!sun!cognito!randolph
From: randolph%cognito@Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Evolutionary factors in human psychology
Message-ID: <48002@sun.uucp>
Date: 2 Apr 88 09:22:49 GMT
References: <6107@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1085@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> <764@actnyc.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: randolph@sun.UUCP (Randolph Fritz)
Distribution: sci
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 19

Gordon Fitch (gcf@actnyc.UUCP) writes:
    I would think that there would be almost no neutral mutations at all.
    If a mutation were otherwise neutral, i.e. noise, it would take up
    room in limited genetic space (it must be limited, or "higher" species
    would have indefinitely many genes.)  So "neutral" genes would be at
    least moderately negative when the cost of storing and processing 
    the information was thrown in, and would be eliminated before long.  
    At least, this is what the system administrators force me to do to 
    my precious files.

Genetic space isn't limited; most of an organism's DNA is never
expressed.  A good bit of it doesn't code for anything.  Apparently,
rather than a large file system, an organism's genetic complement may
be better likened to a huge program library in which are stored vast
amounts of code used by the organism's ancestors.  Every so often,
evolution re-uses a routine, or recycles the space occupied by an old
routine.

__Randolph Fritz, randolph@sun.com; sun!randolph