Whenever I look at discussions of fitness landscapes (in particular, Kauffman's NK model) the questions tend to resemble:
The population is at a local equilibrium, but another equilibrium of higher fitness exists, how will the population cross the fitness valley between these equilibria?
These sort of statements assume that the population has reached a local equilibrium. Although, the local equilibria must exist, why do the people working in this field believe that they can be found before environmental (or other external events) change the fitness function? Are the timescales required to go from a random initial population to one that is at a local equilibrium compatible with the typical time-scales on which a fixed fitness landscape is an appropriate approximation?
If we switch to the polar opposite model of complete frequency-dependent selection (say replicator dynamics in evolutionary game theory) then limit-cycles (think rock-paper scissors game) and chaotic-attractors are common and it is possible for the population genetics to be constantly changing and never at equilibrium.
In an experimental setting, it also seems like although beneficial point-mutations are much more rare than deleterious, they do exist. This would suggest that experimentally, organisms are not at a local equilibrium. Do model organisms tend to be at local fitness equilibria?
In general, is the local equilibrium assumption in fitness landscapes research a reasonable assumption?
No comments:
Post a Comment