Side comments: Genetic Entropy will be debated once again

Of course. But IF we are modeling GE going forward from the present moment, what matters is how the current population is structured presently, and how it will change in the future. For that specific question, how it got to be structured the way it is now is strictly irrelevant to a foward simulation. It will simply be a starting point for a forward simulation. If God zapped us all into being yesterday, or we evolved over millions of years, is technically irrelevant to a foward simulation because right now the human population is what it is regardless of what occurred leading up to it.

Yes, of course, if we want to try to model whether the present human population could have evolved from some arbitrary point in the past too, then we’re going to have to look at what values will be appropriate to use there also.

Of course. Couldn’t be any other way. Though I have to say this looks like you’re saying nothing could convince you of that. A humble view to take given you’re criticizing people working int a field in which you’re not formally educated and have never published.

Hey Paul, will you be dealing with the topic of non-fixed DFE’s at some point? You know that whole thing about fitness peaks and so on. I’m only asking since you’ve brought up the topic of ignoring evidence.

No, I don’t think it would be a good use of my time to keep feeding evidence to people who ignore what I already provided. Contrary to Hancock’s (and Fisher’s) outdated claim, the DFE is not determined by the distance from some imagined concept of a fitness optimum beyond which fitness cannot possibly increase.

As I pointed out in the debate, from the experts Gerrish and Lynch specifically, the reason for the asymmetry is that “it’s easier to break a gene than make a gene”. That fact is always true, regardless of where you may be on the fitness spectrum. The DFE does vary, but it varies with respect to organismal complexity, not fitness level.