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.

Lumifer 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: Lumifer 11 June 2015 02:21:18AM *  0 points [-]

This is totally wrong.

Read the comment you linked more carefully. I'm not talking about reality -- I'm talking about the model which RichardKennaway proposed. Specifically, I find this model too simple because it has a single force acting on the spread of a gene -- the "selective disadvantage D". Note, by the way, that it's not about neutral mutations at all, presumably D is not zero and we are talking about mutations which are actually selected against.

Given that, the expected value of X (I'll grant you that I should have been more clear that I'm talking about the expected value and not about what one instantiation of a random process could possibly be) must decrease.

There is no question to beg

In the model proposed there is.