Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 May 2000 20:54:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
629 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
<snip>
> next couple generations. But, I assume that promiscuity is a polygenic effect,
> so we can assume (if we accept my premis) that the factors making up
> promiscuity can be influenced by selection.
Ok- I'll assume. This may spawn a separate discussion, but did anyone
read that 'natural history of rape' book that made a lot of headlines a few
months ago. i haven't read it yet, but i have read some other books on
sexual evolution, i forget what they said about promiscuity.
> Obviously, it's in the 'interest' of the species to reproduce as much as
> possible up until the point where we're wasting energy that should be devoted
> to caring for the young. Up to a point. There are population densities where
> catastrophic disease that could substantially injure the whole of the species
> is being courted. At that point, it's in the interest of the species to slow
> down reproduction.
I disagree here, I think I am in more of the carrying capacity camp. You
seem to be discounting
> > > I think that the victims of infection dying counts as selection as long as • they
> > > can no longer breed. Right?
> >
> > yes, they are selected out of the population, but they have a chance to breed
> > before they are selected, which will pass their genes to the next generation.
> > So there is virtually no selection differential against HIV/AIDs victims
>
> Well...the selection is weaker than mutations that kill infants suffer, but I'm
> not sure that you can just discount it. The organism we're discussion can
> reproduce for at least 35 years. Even if HIV takes 18 years to kill, that
> still cuts out almost half their reproductive years. So (discounting
> confounding variables) those prone to contract HIV are more likely to produce
> fewer offspring than those not prone to HIV infection. So selection will take
> a bit longer. The gene frequency will still drift.
Hmm, maybe drift has a different meaning to you, given your background. To me,
drift is thought of as a random, unguided event. You seem to state that
genetic drift is the result of random events, selection, etc. I see what you
mean though, it's wierd how the term can be used two different ways. That might
be another part of our miscommunications.
I understand what you are saying in regard to the # of offspring produced.
However infected males can produce a lot of offspring with no parental
investment. females can reproduce at least every 10-11 months... it
will spread long before the 'abstience gene' can reach high proportions
in the population.
> > Since there is no selection, I don't see how your 'weak abstinance gene' will
> > arise. Can you explain your hypothesis better?
>
> Do the two bits above address this fully?
more or less- yes.
<snip>
> > could be a whole different story... However, I just think the change
> > would be too slow... (maybe i'll try the math on this tonight.
>
> It may be slow. Everything in genetics is slow.
yea, but i mean real slow, hundreds of generations slow. the virus would
have adapted to the change many times over by then.
> > What's your interest in genetics(just curious)?
<snip>
> 12, African Cichlids as a young adult, show cats for the last ten years, and
> I'm soon to start chickens since I just moved to the "country."
African Cichlids are one on the things that got me into evolutionary biology.
Adaptive radiation was the coolest thing to learn about. :)
-Chris
ps. i'll be travelling the next few days, so if i don't respond to anything
in this thread quickly, I apoligize.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) I think I was mixing the way that I was using the phrase "in the interest of." Obviously organisms don't know what's in their species' "best interest" in terms of adaptability. I'd revise my statement above to be something like: It is probably (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) I'm sure (well, as sure as I can be with no real evidence, so take this to mean that it seems exremely likely) that sexuality is controlled both by genetic and environmental factors. I guess the way I named the "weak abstinence gene" it (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
