3 ms·

It's not the author's analogy. The article is referencing a concept named the Red Queen hypothesis[1], and the only thing that's material to the explanation is

It's not the author's analogy. The article is referencing a concept named the Red Queen hypothesis[1], and the only thing that's material to the explanation is the phrase "Now here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place" as that's literally the only Carroll in the original paper[2]. Nor is it being used to explain a concept. Not only is the entire rest of article being used to explain this particular instance of the concept, the very next sentence gives a simplified explanation of the Red Queen hypothesis without analogy. The "literary reference" is not a literary reference at all. It's pointing out that Van Valen was making a literary reference by choosing that name. And it's still not misleading. The difference between "Alice Liddell" vs "Alice" and "catch" vs not caching might be correct vs incorrect, but it still has nothing to do with the reason the hypothesis is named as it is. "They must run and run just to stay where they are." is right in there. Finally, on a meta note, this is exactly the kind of thread asking oneself "is that the most interesting thing one can say about this article?" can avoid, because it isn't. Luckily there are some biologists in the article's comments on Ars to save the day (though you have to wade through some noise first), if anyone's interested in more. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis [2] http://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2010/VanValen%201973%20Evol%20%20Theor%20.pdf http://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarth...

pcthrowaway 12y ago
I agree with everything you say here. I just want to point out that there is the opportunity for confusion based on the explanation provided that is fairly insignificant, but present nonetheless. Namely, the author characterizes the relationship between the two as competitive, or predator-prey. In other words, the two entities described herein (the bacterial and human genomes) are competing just to maintain the same relationship with one another. While this is an accurate description, the actual Carroll story is characteristic of a cooperative relationship; Alice and the Queen are holding hands and running, only to stay in the same place. I realize this is a very minor gripe, and the author of this article is in fact misstating the story in a way that is really truer to the Red Queen hypothesis than it is to the story after which that hypothesis is named. While perhaps not the most interesting discussion point of this article, I do think it was an interesting enough distinction that it was worth pointing out.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

pcthrowaway 12y ago

I agree with everything you say here. I just want to point out that there is the opportunity for confusion based on the explanation provided that is fairly insignificant, but present nonetheless. Namely, the author characterizes the relationship between the two as competitive, or predator-prey. In other words, the two entities described herein (the bacterial and human genomes) are competing just to maintain the same relationship with one another. While this is an accurate description, the actual Carroll story is characteristic of a cooperative relationship; Alice and the Queen are holding hands and running, only to stay in the same place. I realize this is a very minor gripe, and the author of this article is in fact misstating the story in a way that is really truer to the Red Queen hypothesis than it is to the story after which that hypothesis is named. While perhaps not the most interesting discussion point of this article, I do think it was an interesting enough distinction that it was worth pointing out.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]