The Theory of Gene Frequencies by S.Wright

Sewall Wright
Evolution and the Genetics of PopulationsVolume 2
The Theory of Gene FrequenciesI asked my Mother for this book for Christmas and finally I am beginning to work Wright’s notions integrally into my own. I should probably have started this process earlier, but because I would have had to sit in Cornell’s Library for extended periods of time, I had not done so.This post is only some preliminary observations relative to contemporary criticism as there are a lot of points to be harmonized before a more proper criticism can be gain said.As I said, I have only been reading this book since Dec 26th or so. The book is one of a four part series and eventually I will comment on all four. This book is the pivotal one for understanding the contextualizability of all of Wright’s work as embodied in the four volumes. William Provine has written both an autobiography and book of collected papers of Sewall’s previously. Volume one “was concerned with the genetic and biometric foundations on which population genetics must be built”, while chromosome aberration as a factor in evolution is put off till the third volume. The last book contains how to apply the ideas iNTo Nature.Since evolutionists tend to DEFEND against creationism some notions by relying on DEFINING evolution through changes in gene frequencies it is incumbent on creationists to understand as much as possible about the structure and content of the subject of this 2nd volume. Later posts will pick out parts of the contents, which consist of 15 chapters as well as an introduction and a conclusion.Instead, in this opening post I will make some observations relative to two relatively recents comments on Wright. The Persistence of the R.A. Fisher-Sewall Wright Controversy - PhilSci-Archive
&
evolgen archive: William Provine and the Biological Meaning of Genetic DriftI had started the related thread
EvC Forum: Prof Denies Human Free Willwherein I first learned of what is being discussed in evolgen spot above.This blog attracted John Davison and I will comment more on JAD’s one liner there when I come to relate some things relative to “closing the circle” where in the chapter on inbeeding Wright refers to Kimura and CROW, John’s advisor, on “different kinds of correlations between gamets in a generation.”(p203)The blogger,however, cannot dissociate netural evolution from the intricay of the phases in Wright’s shifting balance theory. He even indicates that species and not populations be considered with respect to substitutions. Significantly he attempts to explain Provine’s position

quote:

---

I don't think Provine was arguing that inbreeding replace drift as an explanation for changes in allele frequencies in small populations, merely that the two could be confounded (and he thinks Wright did just that).

---

Yet what the blogger actually said was,

quote:

---

In the early treatments of drift by Wright and colleagues, the terms gamete, chromosome, and allele were used interchangeably. It’s true that chromosomes can be modeled like marbles being drawn from jar, and genetic drift seems plausible under this model. The same goes for individual loci, but when we begin to model multiple linked loci, recombination is not strong enough to allow us to assume independence.

---

Actually I think I am finding in reading this volume of Wright that organonically but not mathematically gametes and zygotes can be differently approached, not that there is some conflation between linkage groups and indiviually Mendelized transmissions. I will very this as I read and review the book. The blogger comments on Will’s new notion seems to me prelimiarily to deny something else, namely that migration AS USED BY WRIGHT can not show further relative evidence in evolutionary theory. If that was the correct reading of Will then I suspect Will is also mistaken but I will bring that up in another context.I will not comment now on the other link comparing Wright and Fisher as I am having some technical difficulties cutting and pasting the GOOGLE HTML version but I now understand that Will Provine failed to write up that Wright had TWO different versions of a "surface" such that there is NO information in any other biological text that I know of that attempts to visualize the conditions necessary for the surface tangent to be described. This must be why Provine said that Wright's landscape "does not even begin to work" but I find that it is simply from a lack of the highest mathematical maturity"" in biology that has prevented the topology from be described. There is some discussion of inter vs intra demic selection but there I have never seen any visuals that show what the arrangement looks like. Sociobiological talk seems to have replaced the necessary debate.here are pages 20-23 If I can say aything new it will be because I can communicate a new way to "drop" the perpendiculars instructed on these pages.
The pages below are instructive for the creationist who is concerned with howcome "beneficial" mutations get more 'play' in the debate than their potential contribution warrants. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-30-2006 02:44 PM