Re: A simple model exhibiting Haldane's limit


"Peter F" <19eimc_minus19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:e8eac3$2bjj$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e8ct4g$1naq$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

One thing that I like about your investigations into (and playing around
with)
evolution-modeling mathematics is that you seem to
arrive at realistic interpretations of what is possible and useful to model.

Well, thank you. I guess you are talking about my shift in the organism
under study from H. sapiens to slime mold. Well, I think that humans
are too difficult to study. But slime molds I have at least a chance of
understanding. Let the slime mold scientists study humans.

More seriously, the advantages of the switch are:
- Only two different possible results for reproductive success. This
means that I can use algebra and arithmetic in analyzing the model
rather than using calculus. And, like Joe, I don't quite trust
computer models that I can't analyze on paper. I've written too
many computer programs that didn't do what I intended. I no longer
trust any computer model.
- If I am right that the root-cause reason for a Haldane-like limit
is the assumption that the 'life history profile' doesn't evolve,
then this example makes it particularly clear cut. A human life
history profile arguably DOES change depending on environment,
severity of selection, etc. It just doesn't change by much. But
the slime doesn't change at all, at least not by small steps.

The disadvantages are:
- I am no longer directly engaging ReMine and Malcolm. They may have
no interest in slime.
- Slime are "monogamous" and don't produce a variable number of offspring.
Also, there is no drift due to sampling of segregated chromosomes.
(There may still be drift due to random survival.) I may be missing
something important by leaving these things out.


.