🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <29517@castle.ed.ac.uk> rambaut@castle.ed.ac.uk (A E Ram aut) writes:
>swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
>
>>|> Would it not be more correct to define evolution in terms of phenotypic
>>|> change as it is the phenotype that most mechanisms of evolution (natural
>>|> selection, sexual selection  etc.) act upon.
>
>>No, this will not work.  For a change to count as evolutionary, it *must*
>>be inheritable, that is it must be genetic.  This is because non-heritable
>>changes are not propagated, and thus cannot be *accumulated* - which makes
>>the whole process rather meaningless.
>
>Phenotype is by definition inheritable because the phenotype is the
>physical manifestation of the genotype an inheritable set of alleles.

Actually, phenotype is generally defined as the physical manifestation
of the interaction of the genotype with the environment; hence the
equation:

  V(p) = V(g) + V(e)

Or, variation in the phenotype is made up of variation due to the
genotype and variation due to the environment.  So, some proportion 
(0 <= p <= 1) of the phenotype is heritable and some proportion isn't.

>Andrew.

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * I borrowed Dad's jack.  I'll *
* Program in Evolution,           *   return it and his rivet    * (<-Don't
*      Ecology, and Behavior      *        gun tomorrow          *     ask)
* Indiana University, Bloomington *            -Bob              *