Felsenstein's Paradox
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:52:45 -0500 (EST)
The Cost of Substitution issue presented a paradox which Felsenstein
identified. Any paradox represents a critical error in THE QUESTION, i.e.
the premises that form the basis of the question were not self consistent
(they were contradictory). Can anybody here identify the non self consistent
premises which allowed the following paradox:
Joe Felsenstein posted the following paradox in Jul 2006:
"Suppose there are two alleles, A1 and A2
and the population size remains constant. They are
in equal frequencies at the start. In time period 1,
as a result of natural selection, A1 increases to
0.52. There is a modest cost (ReMine's cost) for
this. Then A1 decreases in the next period to 0,
under a different selection regime. No extra cost.
The total cost has been small.
But ... suppose we ask about the other allele, A2.
In the first time period it decreases to 0.48 (at no cost). Then in
the next time period it increases to 1.0, with lots of cost involved.
But these are the same events. Looked at one way
the cost is small, looked at the other way it is large.
Which is true?"
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: How quickly does the gene pool deteriorate when the weak
- Next by Date: Re: The Origins of Human Society
- Previous by thread: Paper: Partner choice creates competitive altruism in humans
- Next by thread: Call For Papers: WORLDCOMP'07: conferences in computer science & computer engineering, USA
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
