Problem:
Whenever I look at discussions of fitness landscapes (in particular, Kauffman's NK model) the questions tend to resemble:
The population is at a local equilibrium, but another equilibrium of higher fitness exists
Question: how will the population cross the fitness valley between these equilibria?
These sort of statements assume that the population has reached a local equilibrium. Although, the local equilibria must exist,
Question: why do the people working in this field believe that they can be found before environmental (or other external events) change the fitness function?
Question: Are the timescales required to go from a random initial population to one that is at a local equilibrium compatible with the typical time-scales on which a fixed fitness landscape is an appropriate approximation?
If we switch to the polar opposite model of complete frequency-dependent selection (say replicator dynamics in evolutionary game theory) then limit-cycles (think rock-paper scissors game) and chaotic-attractors are common and it is possible for the population genetics to be constantly changing and never at equilibrium.
In an experimental setting, it also seems like although beneficial point-mutations are much more rare than deleterious, they do exist. This would suggest that experimentally, organisms are not at a local equilibrium.
Question: Do model organisms tend to be at local fitness equilibria?
Question: Is the local equilibrium assumption in fitness landscapes research a reasonable assumption?