The need for a two tier formulation

At least we think the selection happens at the individual level, whether you will see a particular genotype later in evolutionary time does not depend on collective group but the reproductive capacity of the individual.

But an individual also deals with daily life activities, say bathing, eating, playing etc and also competition, running away from predators, trying to find a person of opposite sex to mate with. Now these activities are frequency dependent in the sense that how much of the males are present in the population decides whether you should be looking out for females or they will come to you.

Hence what happens thousands of years later(considering evolution) must also depend on what’s happening during each month of the animal’s life. This is equivalent to the idea of merging two distinct terms in evolution.

Normally population genetics answers question like which gene will increase in frequency given all else is fixed, which is termed as micro-evolution. But the seemingly unrealistic assumption of all else being fixed for thousands of generations can be eliminated if we have a precise idea of how the weather must be changing over those thousands of years (however gradually) which can change the notion of who is fit. And hence the concept of frequency/density dependent selection. What happens thousands of years later is termed macro-evolution. Normally population genetics guy won’t know anything about macroevolution and paleontologists (guys like Gould, Eldridge) won’t know anything about micro-evolution. Evolutionary ecology connects both.

The mechanism by which this is attained is by using a two tier model in which in one lifetime the ecology of animal determines its relative numbers by determing how does he interact with others and gets payoff. When he reproduces, we allow his children to do the same,play in the ecological setting and get payoffs.Now gradually the payoffs themselves might change depending on the environment or some other long term effect which will change the payofffs and hence also the way the game is played. It is equivalent to think of it as two for loops. One in which ecology occurs, the other in which evolution change ecological setting. 

This particular thought has also led me to think of viewing another problem by the same mechanism,namely the notion of evolvability .That is how the rate of evolution itself and properites of evolution itself change over time. Which in our "for" loop case will correspond to a third for loop. 

More on this when i do it.