You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Elo comments on When does heritable low fitness need to be explained? - Less Wrong Discussion

15 Post author: DanArmak 10 June 2015 12:05AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (146)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Elo 11 June 2015 12:39:02AM *  0 points [-]

(2) Empirically, 1/4 of achondroplasia births are inherited and 3/4 are de novo.

sorry; point 2 again, (Aa x aa should product a 1/2 not a 1/4)

acondroplasia X normal

............A.............a

...a.......Aa..........aa

...a......Aa...........aa

50%Aa acondroplasia

50%aa normal

or am I confused somewhere? Is that not the punnet square?

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 11 June 2015 12:51:16AM 0 points [-]

Sure, that's the punnet square. You should stop drawing punnet squares and ask yourself why you are drawing them and ask what role they play.

The number 1/4 is the empirical fitness. It is mainly about how many children dwarfs have. You cannot guess that number by looking at punnet squares.