Re: Kin Selection contradiction?

From: Guy Hoelzer (hoelzer_at_unr.edu)
Date: 06/15/04 

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:31:05 +0000 (UTC)

in article cag106$256c$1@darwin.ediacara.org, Perplexed in Peoria at
jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net wrote on 6/12/04 3:44 PM:

> "Guy Hoelzer" <hoelzer@unr.edu> wrote in message
> news:cadt5u$1fdg$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>> in article cackkq$11g3$1@darwin.ediacara.org, Perplexed in Peoria at
>> jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net wrote on 6/11/04 8:55 AM:
>>
>>> "Guy Hoelzer" <hoelzer@unr.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:cabf2v$l9m$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>>>> If you actually do a numerical model of a population subjected to kin
>>>> selection, the Rule will frequently make false predictions regarding
> the
>>>> direction of allele frequency change in a frequency-dependent fashion,
> even
>>>> in a large but finite population.
>>>
>>> Finite population. Hmmm. Yes, I agree that the inclusive fitness
> selection
>>> coefficient becomes arbitrarily small when the frequency of the
> "altruistic
>>> allele" approaches 1. So, yes, I suppose the likelihood that drift will
>>> overwhelm selection is frequency dependent.
>>
>> Sure. This is true of all forms of selection. However, by "large but
>> finite population" I meant to get rid of the misleading aspects of the
>> infinite population model without introducing the noise of drift.
>
> You have me curious. Besides drift, what else is missing in the infinite
> population model? You ought to be able to model inbreeding and populations
> structured into demes even with infinite populations.

Space and time, for two rather important and universally true factors.

Guy