dvunkannon
Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008
|
| Quote (skeptic reborn @ Sep. 11 2010,22:05) | | unless the heavy lifting is done in the paper, I see some rather vague hand-waving here. I think you need to tighten this up quite a bit before it's really usable for discussion. |
Could you be clearer about which portions need to be more precise?
Nilsson and Pelger's paper is clear about the calculation of visual acuity for selection, but outlines a different model entirely for eye evolution. In that paper, no effort is made to sketch the developmental program of the eye, or how it must have changed gradually. Instead, they focus (sorry for the pun) entirely on the final morphology of the eye, and assume it could change gradually from generation to generation.
--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima
|
