You forgot to take into account female-line descendants of the generation 1 men. With your approximations, every generation 1 man who reproduces the first time ends up having descendants going straight down the female line after the first generation.
I derped that one up, didn’t I? With the other assumptions, the 90 generation 1 men would always have descendants, since each pairing produces one woman. I guess the only conclusion I can salvage from that scenario is that strictly male-line descendants of generation 1 collapse exponentially while female-line descendants remain constant. I’ll work out something better.
Actually, because the paper Wilder 2004 relied on mitochondria from women and y-chromosomes from men, which can only be passed down through same-sex kids, your model might reproduce the data they use!
That brings some tweaks and ideas to mind, but I obviously need to take a long break and do some serious reading before retrying my hand at amateur population genetics. Any resemblance to useful data in that mess is entirely coincidental.
It would be interesting to make some plausible adjustments to see what happens to strictly male-line inheritance. One could substitute probabilities for the strictly 10/80/10 divide I used and make plausible assumptions e.g. probability(male is dominant|male is descended from dominant male)>probability(male is dominant|male is descendant from monogamous male). But I’m betting this sort of thing has been done elsewhere and that the job was better than that.
You forgot to take into account female-line descendants of the generation 1 men. With your approximations, every generation 1 man who reproduces the first time ends up having descendants going straight down the female line after the first generation.
I derped that one up, didn’t I? With the other assumptions, the 90 generation 1 men would always have descendants, since each pairing produces one woman. I guess the only conclusion I can salvage from that scenario is that strictly male-line descendants of generation 1 collapse exponentially while female-line descendants remain constant. I’ll work out something better.
Actually, because the paper Wilder 2004 relied on mitochondria from women and y-chromosomes from men, which can only be passed down through same-sex kids, your model might reproduce the data they use!
This is rather far from my expertise though.
That brings some tweaks and ideas to mind, but I obviously need to take a long break and do some serious reading before retrying my hand at amateur population genetics. Any resemblance to useful data in that mess is entirely coincidental.
It would be interesting to make some plausible adjustments to see what happens to strictly male-line inheritance. One could substitute probabilities for the strictly 10/80/10 divide I used and make plausible assumptions e.g. probability(male is dominant|male is descended from dominant male)>probability(male is dominant|male is descendant from monogamous male). But I’m betting this sort of thing has been done elsewhere and that the job was better than that.