Hello Dillan,
I've got a few questions about your post. First of all let me explain that I am not a mathematician, I am a cell biologist with an embarrassing lack of knowledge in all things statistical. Could you take this into account when you are replying and keep it simple, so my basic maths can keep up.
1) You make a big thing in the rehash of the original calculation that you are reducing the number of individuals taken into consideration. Numbers like 5% of a total population does sound like a considerable reduction, but I wonder whether they still are practical. Doesn't every single individual in this group have to be able to contribute to the genetic pool to make the analysis valid? I don't know much about the specific species involved but isn't the real situation more likely to resemble a loose population made up of much smaller groups of interbreeding individuals?
2) On a similar note: Does the calculation take into account, for example social factors such as the existance of dominant males. Surely this would have a bearing on your calculations?
3) I vaguely remember from my undergraduate days that there was some sort of simple calculation that estimated how many offspring would inherit a particular mutation (and hence how quickly it would establish itself in a species). In this case there was a factor which rated whether a particular trait was highly selectable or not as a percentage (ie 1% being not very useful and 100% meaning VERY selectable), is there anything like this considered in your sums?
In short, I do not believe that such mathematical arguments can come to any conclusion without making assumptions or blanket calculations because reality is too complicated and too much of this complication is unknown.
I apologise if these points have been raised before in this topic, but I would appreciate it if you spelt it out to me again.
Regards
"Ooook"