Tim Tyler  wrote:-

> > > > JE:-
> > > > The value r cannot be zero unless life was not decended
> > > > from just one common ancestor.

> > > JM:-
> > > There are two different versions of "r" being confused here.
> > > What you say is correct for "IBD_r".  I was referring to
> > > "regression_r", which can be zero or negative.  
 
> > JE:-
> > Regression does not help because
> > a negative r only remains biologically 
> > _meaningless_ and just a zero r means all
> > life is not descended from just the one
> > common ancestor no matter what mathematics
> > is that is employed to calculate r. EITHER we 
> > are all descended from just the one common ancestor 
> > or we are NOT. The rule of parsimony insists that 
> > we must assume that all life is descended from the 
> > one same ancestor until it is proven otherwise. To
> > ignore parsimony is to reduce the efficiency
> > of the biological sciences, i.e. waste time and 
> > money on pointless research (even if it is other
> > peoples money!).

> TT:-
> To recap, "negative r" means that in individual shares
> even fewer genes with you than a randomly-chosen member
> of the population would.
> 
> In a resource-limited environment, actions that help any
> individuals with negative r, would usually [*] have a
> negative impact on the proportion of the helper's
> genes that can be expected to survive.
> 
> [*] if you ignore species-level selection, etc.

JE:-
My understanding is that the only point in replacing 
IBD with regression analysis is to attempt to remove probability 
within Hamilton's rb fitness count (IBD is just the probability
one gene was replicated from it's parent gene over however, organism 
and _not_ gene generations making Hamilton's measure of relatedness
just logically self inconsistent) because c, to which rb is to be 
compared  by simple subtraction, is NOT just a probability. Reducing r to
now become only a comparison to the relatedness you would expect from 
"a randomly-chosen  member of the population" simply replaces one 
probability with yet another. However, now no way exists to 
actually measure relatedness! Please provide the so far entirely missing 
measuring  mechanism for calculating so called shared genes that 
is not just an IBD measure so you can _know_ that a negative r means 
an "individual shares even fewer genes with you than a randomly-chosen 
member of the population".

What is happening here is that it is finally being
acknowledged that r (IBD) as just a probability 
always constituted a misuse within Hamilton's fitness 
count rb which was compared within the rule by simple 
subtraction to c, simply because c represented a hard
and testable to refutation number that was NOT just 
a probability. In fact cmax represented the missing
total fitness of the actor. Hamilton's Rule is just
an unnecessary gamble on the part of an actor for
nothing that can be measured. Neo Darwinists
bumbling  attempts to replace IBD with a regression 
analysis reduces relatedness to 100% relative nonsense. 
I repeat, negative r only constitutes a _biologically_ 
meaningless term. Either you are related or you
are not. Assuming you can be less than not related
will always constitute Mad Hatter nonsense.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/10/04 6:26:24 AM