Steve Schaffner
Posts: 13
Joined: June 2009
|
| Quote (Bob O'H @ June 18 2009,01:30) |
My advice: keep away from heritability. It complicates matters, and is dependent on the genetic variation in the population. I suspect Sanford et al. don't really understand quantitative genetics: certainly Sanford makes some mistakes because of his lack of understanding in Genetic Entropy.
|
Modeling is easier if you simply work with the selective advantage of the genotype, rather than the selection coefficient for a partly heritable trait. Here the partly heritable trait is fitness itself, which makes my head hurt.
| Quote |
Indeed, but it can get arbitrarily close to 0, so it doesn't make any practical difference (unless you're working with continuous populations, when you end up with nano-foxes).
|
What kind of fitness are we talking about here, though? Since MA keeps the population constant, it is implicitly using relative fitness. In that case, introducing an arbitrary scaling factor into the fitness doesn't matter; it's only the ratio of fitnesses that matters. It seems to me that the model treats fitness as being relative until it get very small, at which point it is treated as absolute. But there is no simple way to determine absolute fitness from relative fitness.
This seems like a basic point, but I don't understand what the program is trying to model here.
|
