"Anon." 

> The idea is straightforward.  Imagine that we observe that 5 mutations
> (A, B, C, D and E) have become fixed in a population, and we want to
> know the probability that this happened.  If we could assume that they
> were independent, then we could calculate the probability as the product
> of the individual probabilities.  But if the fixation depended on the
> order in which the mutations became fixed, then this won't work.
> Instead, we have to calculate the probabilties for all of the possible
> orders, and sum them.  So, for the order A B C D E we calculate
> P(A).P(B|A).P(C|A B).P(D|A B C).P(E|A B C D)
> (where P(x|y) is the probability of x given y) and then just take the sum.

JE:-
None of these genes have an independent fitness.
All of them, without exception, are selected at
the same, single, fitness level: the Darwinian fertile
organism level of selection. Any assumption that
they are independent in fitness deletes all gene
fitness epistasis and ignores pleiotropic effects
by each same gene which could stop selfish geneism,
in its tracks i.e.  genes appearing to "cheat"
(see post re: slime mould slug formation).

If you do not agree with the proposition
none of the genes in your proposed model have an
independent fitness (i.e. all these genes are
fitness epistatic) please provide sbe readers with
just one example of an  independent gene fitness that
has  been documented as an observation of nature. Since
none of the genes within your simplified model can
be independently selected how do you correct your
oversimplified model  to allow for such a _basic_ fact
of nature?

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
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 10/31/04 4:54:52 PM