So if homosexuals have 1 fewer kid, then you need to detect 2 kids among their sisters, and so on. From that you do the power calculation.
Back when you did the power calculation for 1⁄3 rather than 2, you didn’t believe that. This number 2 is wrong for three reasons:
Inclusive fitness is irrelevant to the antagonistic selection hypothesis. (factor of 2)
It ignores penetrance, which is clearly not 100%; it doesn’t matter how many children homosexuals have, but rather how many children (male) carriers of the gene(s) have. (factor of 3)
It ignores the fact that siblings only are only 1⁄2 related. The relevant gene(s) should only elevate the fertility of carriers, not all sisters. (factor of 2)
Back when you did the power calculation for 1⁄3 rather than 2, you didn’t believe that. This number 2 is wrong for three reasons:
Inclusive fitness is irrelevant to the antagonistic selection hypothesis. (factor of 2)
It ignores penetrance, which is clearly not 100%; it doesn’t matter how many children homosexuals have, but rather how many children (male) carriers of the gene(s) have. (factor of 3)
It ignores the fact that siblings only are only 1⁄2 related. The relevant gene(s) should only elevate the fertility of carriers, not all sisters. (factor of 2)