Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: sexual recombination and gender differences

Expand Messages
  • Tim Taylor
    Hi, People following this thread might be interested in a new book reviewed in this week s issue of Nature: Evolution s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender and
    Message 1 of 11 , May 6, 2004
      Hi,

      People following this thread might be interested in a new
      book reviewed in this week's issue of Nature:

      "Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender and Sexuality in
      Nature and People" by Joan Roughgarden
      University of California Press, 2004.

      The review details are:
      "Sexual diversity and the gender agenda" by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy,
      Nature 429, pp. 19-21 (6 May 2004).

      (For what it's worth, Hrdy's review is generally positive but
      with some reservations.)

      Tim


      Tom Lenaerts <tlenaert@v...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi all,
      >
      >
      > Can anyone point me in the direction of good publications discussing
      > the use of different
      > genders in the context of evolutionary algorithms. We all assume some
      > form of sexual
      > reproduction yet no distinction is made between "male" and "female".
      > I would like to
      > know if any work has been done on actually evolving these gender
      > differences and the
      > motivation for it.
      >
      > kind regards
      >
      > Tom

      --
      Tim Taylor =======================================================
      Research Fellow, Institute of Perception, Action & Behaviour (IPAB)
      School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh

      Tel. +44 (0)131 651 3436 :: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/timt/
      Fax. +44 (0)131 651 3435 :: (full contact details on web page)
      ==================================================================
    • conor.ryan@ul.ie
      Tom, You might want to take a look at Robert Collins PhD, Studies in Artificial Evolution . I seem to remember he had a model of genders that he called the
      Message 2 of 11 , May 6, 2004
        Tom,
        You might want to take a look at Robert Collins' PhD, "Studies in
        Artificial Evolution". I seem to remember he had a model of genders that
        he called the Peacock model. Unfortunately, I haven't seen it for a while,
        and couldn't find a link for it when I was looking for it recently.

        Conor
        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
        Dr. Conor Ryan, Senior Lecturer >email: Conor.Ryan@...
        Dept of CSIS, >http://pyrrha.csis.ul.ie/conor
        University of Limerick >fax: +353-61-202734
        Limerick, Ireland >phone +353-61-202755
        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

        On Mon, 3 May 2004, Tom Lenaerts wrote:

        > Hi all,
        >
        >
        > Can anyone point me in the direction of good publications discussing the
        > use of different genders in the context of evolutionary algorithms. We
        > all assume some form of sexual reproduction yet no distinction is made
        > between "male" and "female". I would like to know if any work has been
        > done on actually evolving these gender differences and the motivation
        > for it.
        >
        > kind regards
        >
        > Tom
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Martin Sewell
        ... Imagine a population of hermaphrodites. 1) Some will be genetically biased towards putting more time and effort into mating, their genes will thrive as
        Message 3 of 11 , May 6, 2004
          At 20:59 05/05/2004 +0200, Tom Lenaerts wrote:
          >[...]
          >
          >Do you have any reference discussing this issue? The question we should
          >ask before is why have two sexes at all? It might be the case that this
          >asymmetric situation is correct. Yet why did it evolve in the first
          >place. It seems that this is also not clear to Biologists.
          >
          >[...]

          Imagine a population of hermaphrodites.
          1) Some will be genetically biased towards putting more time and effort
          into mating, their genes will thrive as they inseminate many others.
          2) Others will be biased towards expending energy by producing eggs and
          bearing babies, they will also be genetically successful as can do their
          best to ensure their children survive.
          Those individuals who lie in the middle , and specialise in neither
          activity, will die out.

          The first type leads to a small active gamete, the second a larger, static
          gamete. The union of two unequal gametes in reproduction is known as
          anisogamy. Inter-sex competition ensures that this dichotomy persists.

          Regards

          Martin

          Reference:
          Parker, G.A., R.R. Baker, and V.G.F. Smith. 1972. The origin and evolution
          of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon. Journal of Theoretical
          Biology 36: 529-553.
        • Lucas, Simon M
          Martin, That s the clearest description I ve seen of why we have two sexes. Are you aware of any open-ended simulations that have explored conditions under
          Message 4 of 11 , May 7, 2004
            Martin,

            That's the clearest description I've
            seen of why we have two sexes.

            Are you aware of any open-ended simulations
            that have explored conditions under which
            this sexual dimorphism spontaneously arises?

            Best regards,

            Simon


            -----Original Message-----
            From: Martin Sewell [mailto:M.Sewell@...]
            Sent: 07 May 2004 01:22
            To: genetic_programming
            Subject: Re: [GP] sexual recombination and gender differences


            At 20:59 05/05/2004 +0200, Tom Lenaerts wrote:
            >[...]
            >
            >Do you have any reference discussing this issue? The question we
            should
            >ask before is why have two sexes at all? It might be the case that this

            >asymmetric situation is correct. Yet why did it evolve in the first
            >place. It seems that this is also not clear to Biologists.
            >
            >[...]

            Imagine a population of hermaphrodites.
            1) Some will be genetically biased towards putting more time and effort
            into mating, their genes will thrive as they inseminate many others.
            2) Others will be biased towards expending energy by producing eggs and
            bearing babies, they will also be genetically successful as can do their

            best to ensure their children survive.
            Those individuals who lie in the middle , and specialise in neither
            activity, will die out.

            The first type leads to a small active gamete, the second a larger,
            static
            gamete. The union of two unequal gametes in reproduction is known as
            anisogamy. Inter-sex competition ensures that this dichotomy persists.

            Regards

            Martin

            Reference:
            Parker, G.A., R.R. Baker, and V.G.F. Smith. 1972. The origin and
            evolution
            of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon. Journal of
            Theoretical
            Biology 36: 529-553.




            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            ADVERTISEMENT






            Yahoo! Groups Links

            To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genetic_programming/

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            genetic_programming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          • Tim Taylor
            Hi Simon, In my PhD thesis I describe some (admittedly fairly simple-minded) experiments with sexual reproduction in my experimental platform COSMOS, which is
            Message 5 of 11 , May 7, 2004
              Hi Simon,

              In my PhD thesis I describe some (admittedly fairly
              simple-minded) experiments with sexual reproduction in my
              experimental platform COSMOS, which is a Tierra-like model
              of self-reproducing programs.

              However, far from seeing sexual dimorphism spontaneously
              arise, I hard-wired it into the system to start with, and
              observed that the populations quickly reverted to asexual
              reproduction in all cases.

              For details look at:
              http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/timt/papers/thesis/html/node155.html

              This is an example of a more general problem with this kind
              of system, which Tom Ray and others also encountered; it is
              not only difficult to get complex adaptations to evolve, but
              it's even difficult just to have them *maintained* during
              evolution if you hard-wire them into the system to start with.
              But I think these results say more about the fragility of this
              particular kind of genetic (and phenotypic) representation than
              they do about evolutionary dynamics in general.

              Best wishes,

              Tim


              --
              Tim Taylor =======================================================
              Research Fellow, Institute of Perception, Action & Behaviour (IPAB)
              School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh

              Tel. +44 (0)131 651 3436 :: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/timt/
              Fax. +44 (0)131 651 3435 :: (full contact details on web page)
              ==================================================================


              On Fri, 7 May 2004, Lucas, Simon M wrote:

              >
              > Martin,
              >
              > That's the clearest description I've
              > seen of why we have two sexes.
              >
              > Are you aware of any open-ended simulations
              > that have explored conditions under which
              > this sexual dimorphism spontaneously arises?
              >
              > Best regards,
              >
              > Simon
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Martin Sewell [mailto:M.Sewell@...]
              > Sent: 07 May 2004 01:22
              > To: genetic_programming
              > Subject: Re: [GP] sexual recombination and gender differences
              >
              >
              > At 20:59 05/05/2004 +0200, Tom Lenaerts wrote:
              > >[...]
              > >
              > >Do you have any reference discussing this issue? The question we
              > should
              > >ask before is why have two sexes at all? It might be the case that this
              >
              > >asymmetric situation is correct. Yet why did it evolve in the first
              > >place. It seems that this is also not clear to Biologists.
              > >
              > >[...]
              >
              > Imagine a population of hermaphrodites.
              > 1) Some will be genetically biased towards putting more time and effort
              > into mating, their genes will thrive as they inseminate many others.
              > 2) Others will be biased towards expending energy by producing eggs and
              > bearing babies, they will also be genetically successful as can do their
              >
              > best to ensure their children survive.
              > Those individuals who lie in the middle , and specialise in neither
              > activity, will die out.
              >
              > The first type leads to a small active gamete, the second a larger,
              > static
              > gamete. The union of two unequal gametes in reproduction is known as
              > anisogamy. Inter-sex competition ensures that this dichotomy persists.
              >
              > Regards
              >
              > Martin
              >
              > Reference:
              > Parker, G.A., R.R. Baker, and V.G.F. Smith. 1972. The origin and
              > evolution
              > of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon. Journal of
              > Theoretical
              > Biology 36: 529-553.
              >
            • Martin Sewell
              ... Thank you. ... I m no expert on this, but the following (and the references therein) may be of interest: Bulmer, M.G. and Parker, G.A. (2002) The
              Message 6 of 11 , May 7, 2004
                At 09:31 07/05/2004 +0100, Lucas, Simon M wrote:

                > Martin,
                >
                > That's the clearest description I've
                > seen of why we have two sexes.

                Thank you.

                > Are you aware of any open-ended simulations
                > that have explored conditions under which
                > this sexual dimorphism spontaneously arises?

                I'm no expert on this, but the following (and the references therein) may
                be of interest:

                Bulmer, M.G. and Parker, G.A. (2002) "The evolution of anisogamy: a
                game-theoretic approach." Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 269, 2381-2388
                "A popular theory has proposed that anisogamy originated through disruptive
                selection acting on an ancestral isogamous population, though recent work
                has emphasized the importance of other factors in its evolution. We
                re-examine the disruptive selection theory, starting from an isogamous
                population with two mating types and taking into account the functional
                relationship, g(m), between the fitness of a gamete and its size, m, as
                well as the relationship, f(S), between the fitness of a zygote and its
                size, S. Evolutionary game theory is used to determine the existence and
                continuous stability of isogamous and anisogamous strategies for the two
                mating types under various models for the two functions g(m) and f(S). In
                the ancestral unicellular state, these two functions are likely to have
                been similar; this leads to isogamy whether they are sigmoidal or concave,
                though in the latter case allowance must be made for a minimal gamete size.
                The development of multicellularity may leave g(m) relatively unchanged
                while f(S) moves to the right, leading to the evolution of anisogamy. Thus,
                the disruptive selection theory provides a powerful explanation of the
                origin of anisogamy, though other selective forces may have been involved
                in the subsequent specialization of micro- and macrogametes."

                Epelman, Marina, Bobbi Low, Brian Netter, and Stephen Pollock (2004)
                "Anisogamy, Expenditure of Reproductive Effort, and the Optimality of
                Having Two Sexes"
                http://ioe.engin.umich.edu/ioe899/papers/anisogamy_rev.pdf

                Maire N., M. Ackermann & M. Doebeli. 2001. "Evolutionary branching and the
                evolution of anisogamy." Selection 2:119-132.
                http://www.math.ubc.ca/~doebeli/reprints/Doe42.pdf

                Matsuda H, Abrams PA. (1999) Why are equally-sized gametes so rare? The
                instability of isogamy and the cost of anisogamy. Evolutionary Ecology
                Research1:769-784.
                http://risk.kan.ynu.ac.jp/matsuda/publication/99EER.pdf

                Regards

                Martin
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.