"Guy Hoelzer"  wrote in message
news:cadt5u$1fdg$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> in article cackkq$11g3$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, Perplexed in Peoria at
> jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net wrote on 6/11/04 8:55 AM:
>
> > "Guy Hoelzer"  wrote in message
> > news:cabf2v$l9m$1{at}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.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 6/12/04 10:40:39 PM