Why sex?
Locked
 
|
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 |
|
|
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. ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
Yes, this article is interesting, but will require study. Allow me a quick comment based only on the abstrct. Given what we know from evo-devo about how entangled is the process of intergeneratonal transfer, modularity is indeed the new miracle of genetics. Given all the editing, revisioning, and and just mucking about that characterizes the developmental process, how is it that ANY traits end up be passed on to offspring? So, once we see modularity as an achievement, rather than as "just the way things are" then we have to ask the old George Williams question: how is it that properties of the genome such as modularity can get selected for.
I hope we can all read this carefully and talk about it.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Speaking of modularity, the cover picture for the current issue of PNAS (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/34.cover-expansion) shows "two members of the Precambrian soft-bodied Ediacara biota displaying distinct modular construction".
And http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000355 discusses computer models that suggest that evolution to satisfy modularly varying goals induces modular systems. -- rec -- On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |