| dc.description.abstract | Evolutionary computer simulations are an important part of the theoretical biologist's toolkit (Peck, 2004;
DeAngelis & Mooij, 2005; Kokko, 2007), offering insights into a range of fundamental evolutionary
processes, not least sexual selection (e.g. van Doorn & Weissing 2004, 2006; Fawcett et al., 2007, 2011;
van Doorn et al., 2009; reviewed in Kuijper et al., 2012). Like all theoretical tools, they must be used with
care (Hamblin, 2012). Smaldino & Newson (2013, henceforth S&N) have challenged our recent work on
parent–offspring conflict over mate choice (Van den Berg et al., 2013), arguing that our simulations rely
on unrealistic assumptions and that our conclusions are not supported. But all four points of criticism they
present are misguided. (1) The accusation that the handicap principle cannot work in our model is wrong;
Fig. 1a in Van den Berg et al. (2013) clearly demonstrates that a costly preference for a signal of male
quality does evolve. (2) The assertion that mutation bias drove male quality close to zero in our model is
wrong; in fact, male quality reached very high, stable levels in our simulations. (3) The assertion that
overcompensation was responsible for our results is wrong; parent and offspring preferences also diverge
in the absence of overcompensation. (4) The alternative explanation offered for our results is wrong,
because it predicts the opposite pattern to that we actually observed in our simulations. Below we address
each of these misunderstandings and consider two alternative hypotheses suggested by S&N | en_GB |
