Zachriel
Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006

Quote (Steve Schaffner @ June 18 2009,20:53)  <snipped>
And the whole thing is pretty convoluted, when the essence of the model could be captured simply by assigning a fitness to the genotype and then calculating the number of offspring. 
From much of this discussion, it's easy to see how many different ways there are to abstract an evolutionary process.
These are the primary attributes I've found in Mendel's Accountant:
* Population of Genotypes (genotypic fitness). * Genotype modified by heritability and noise to Phenotype (phenotypic fitness). * Genotype further modified for chance of reproductive success to Working Fitness. * Number of offspring proportional to sqrt(Phenotype). * Reproduction with mutation. * Throw in more random factors, such as random death.
> The calculation of Phenotype is not scaled. > The calculation of Working Fitness is division by Randomnum. Not the sqrt(randomnum), not some other exponent. Or even a normal binomial to determine reproductive success. > Number of offspring proportional to sqrt(Phenotype). Why the square root? Why not some other exponent? > Random death? Isn't that already accounted for in phenotypic fitness (for stillbirths) or chance of reproductive success?
You may as well throw in another factor that randomizes falling off a cliff and whether she has a headache, and just make up numbers or exponents or parameters that seem right. The problem is the qualitative nature of the simulation and the arbitrariness of some of the assumptions. I just don't see Mendel's Accountant being salvageable as a quantitative model of biology.

You never step on the same tard twiceâ€”for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.
