Are molecular markers useful predictors of adaptive potential?

Estimates of molecular genetic variation are often used as a cheap and simple surrogate for a population's adaptive potential, yet empirical evidence suggests they are unlikely to be a valid proxy. However, this evidence is based on molecular genetic variation poorly predicting estimates of adaptive potential rather than how well it predicts true values. As a consequence, the relationship has been systematically underestimated and the precision with which it could be measured severely overstated. By collating a large database, and using suitable statistical methods, we obtain a 95% upper bound of 0.26 for the proportion of variance in quantitative genetic variation explained by molecular diversity. The relationship is probably too weak to be useful, but this conclusion must be taken as provisional: less noisy estimates of quantitative genetic variation are required. In contrast, and perhaps surprisingly, current sampling strategies appear sufficient for characterising a population's molecular genetic variation at comparable markers.