Re: Intensity of selection and the Price equation - continued(1)
- From: "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:50:33 -0400 (EDT)
"kramer" <kodream@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:e8tt56$316m$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(1) Actually calculate a value for Cov(W,C) under some set of assumptions
(for example, that C is normally distributed, and that selective coefficients
are additive), and
Maybe we can assume nature is well informed about statistics and
mallicious, or why not an extreme value distribution since we are only
interested in ones with maximum fitness. Or even better a
non-distributional analysis. I suppose it really is not important to
do statistics, since there are no controlled experiments available to
test the hypothesis, nor data to analyze.
I probably am missing your point here, but let me point out that, contrary
to appearances, there is no statistical reasoning involved in what I wrote.
We are interested in Cov(W,C) because it arises from Price's theorem.
No statistics or probabilities involved. Even a malicious Nature, rolling
loaded dice, could not make Price's theorem false. As for the assumption
that C is normally distributed, that arises from probability theory (and
Mendelian segregation), not from statistics. A normal distribution is
the limiting case of a binomial distribution.
Your statement "we are only interested in ones with maximum fitness"
excapes me completely. All I can respond with is "No we are not."
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: (newbie) Basic question
- Next by Date: Lecture of the Week: Part VIII: Astrobiology
- Previous by thread: Re: Intensity of selection and the Price equation - continued(1)
- Next by thread: Lecture of the Week: Part VIII: Astrobiology
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
