[zeth___]

You misunderstand the argument.

It's like having a bag 1 filled with equal quantities of capsicums, cherries, and apples, then selecting the top reddest 25% of bag 1 and moving them to bag 2.

You will have much less variability of fruit type in bag 2 because you used color selection to fill it (apples and capsicums come in three colors at will be selected 1/3rd the rate of cherries).

That's the whole point of sexual vs natural selection.

[brenschluss]

> You will have much less variability of fruit type in bag 2 because you used color selection to fill it

Yes, I completely agree with you! You will have much less variability.

However, that's not what the paper argues. The paper argues that you would have more variability.

I'd appreciate you taking a look at the original paper (specifically, the bottom of page 2 [edit: and Figure 1]) and understanding my original argument.

[zeth___]

Right, and now compare it to the original bag.

You have increased variability between generations by reducing the variability in the second generation.

[brenschluss]

I agree with you that there is a difference in variability between generations.

I agree with you that the variability has been reduced in the second generation.

It seems that we both disagree with the original paper, then, as it states

"If sex A is relatively selective and will mate only with the top most desirable quarter of sex B, then all of the next generation will be offspring of the more variable subpopulation B1"