Literature DB >> 10887902

Arithmetic or geometric normality of biological variation: an empirical test of theory.

P D Gingerich1.   

Abstract

Variation of biological populations is required for evolution by natural selection, and variance is a fundamental component in quantitative characterization of evolutionary differences and rates of change. Biological variation is widely understood to be normally distributed because of a general theoretical law of error. The law of error has two forms, and resulting normality may be arithmetic-where equivalent positive and negative deviations from expectation differ by equal amounts, or normality may be geometric-where equivalent deviations differ by equal proportions. Which law of error applies in biology can only be determined empirically, and this is surprisingly difficult. A new likelihood approach is developed here using data from anthropometric surveys of humans in two states in India: Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. Each state sample is large, but more importantly, each includes a large number of smaller subsamples. Likelihood support is additive, and subsamples are advantageous because (1) they are more homogeneous, (2) they yield probabilities and support scores in every case, and (3) significance can be evaluated first by tracing signs of the subsample support scores and then by comparing subsample support sums. Sign traces that fluctuate randomly show arithmetic and geometric normality to be indistinguishable. Two of 14 measurement variables studied here have subsample support sign traces differing from random, and one is significant in having a subsample support sum falling outside a 95% prediction interval for the 12 fluctuating traces: geometric normality is favored by a factor of ca. 10(60). Six of 14 index variables have support sign traces differing from random, and all are significant in having subsample support sums falling outside a 95 % prediction interval for the 8 fluctuating traces: geometric normality is favored by factors of 10(8) or more. Arithmetic and geometric normality cannot be distinguished for 21 of 28 variables studied here, but whenever alternatives are distinguishable geometric normality is consistently and strongly favored. This means that the applicable law of errors is proportional. In practical terms, arithmetic measurements must be transformed using logarithms to represent both the geometric normality of biological variation and the relative functional significance of measurements appropriately.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10887902     DOI: 10.1006/jtbi.2000.2008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Theor Biol        ISSN: 0022-5193            Impact factor:   2.691


  11 in total

1.  Estimation of African apes' body size from postcranial dimensions.

Authors:  Markku Niskanen; Juho-Antti Junno
Journal:  Primates       Date:  2009-02-17       Impact factor: 2.163

Review 2.  Grading Systems for Canine Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder: A Comparative Overview.

Authors:  Eleonora Brambilla; Veronica M Govoni; Alexandre Matheus Baesso Cavalca; Renée Laufer-Amorim; Carlos Eduardo Fonseca-Alves; Valeria Grieco
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-04       Impact factor: 3.231

3.  Phenotypic variance predicts symbiont population densities in corals: a modeling approach.

Authors:  Robert van Woesik; Kazuyo Shiroma; Semen Koksal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-02-12       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  The Independent Evolution Method Is Not a Viable Phylogenetic Comparative Method.

Authors:  Randi H Griffin; Gabriel S Yapuncich
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-12-18       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  The allometry of coarse root biomass: log-transformed linear regression or nonlinear regression?

Authors:  Jiangshan Lai; Bo Yang; Dunmei Lin; Andrew J Kerkhoff; Keping Ma
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Pulsed evolution shaped modern vertebrate body sizes.

Authors:  Michael J Landis; Joshua G Schraiber
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Delineating modern variation from extinct morphology in the fossil record using shells of the Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina).

Authors:  Natasha S Vitek
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The commonness of rarity: Global and future distribution of rarity across land plants.

Authors:  Brian J Enquist; Xiao Feng; Brad Boyle; Brian Maitner; Erica A Newman; Peter Møller Jørgensen; Patrick R Roehrdanz; Barbara M Thiers; Joseph R Burger; Richard T Corlett; Thomas L P Couvreur; Gilles Dauby; John C Donoghue; Wendy Foden; Jon C Lovett; Pablo A Marquet; Cory Merow; Guy Midgley; Naia Morueta-Holme; Danilo M Neves; Ary T Oliveira-Filho; Nathan J B Kraft; Daniel S Park; Robert K Peet; Michiel Pillet; Josep M Serra-Diaz; Brody Sandel; Mark Schildhauer; Irena Šímová; Cyrille Violle; Jan J Wieringa; Susan K Wiser; Lee Hannah; Jens-Christian Svenning; Brian J McGill
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 14.136

9.  Assessment of a Takagi-Sugeno-Kang fuzzy model assembly for examination of polyphasic loglinear allometry.

Authors:  Hector A Echavarria-Heras; Juan R Castro-Rodriguez; Cecilia Leal-Ramirez; Enrique Villa-Diharce
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-01-06       Impact factor: 2.984

10.  Reconstructed evolutionary patterns for crocodile-line archosaurs demonstrate impact of failure to log-transform body size data.

Authors:  Roger B J Benson; Pedro Godoy; Mario Bronzati; Richard J Butler; William Gearty
Journal:  Commun Biol       Date:  2022-02-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.