"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> William Morse  wrote in message:
>  
> > That doesn't mean that Jim and John are wrong - that is 
> > for the reader to decide - but it does mean that they have had 
> > plenty of 
> > opportunity for making their views known.  So blaming the continued 
> > acceptance of Hamilton's rule on some fault in the peer-review 
> > process is 
> > clearly a red herring. Hamilton's rule is accepted because the majority 
> > of scientists who have taken a hard look at it think it has some 
> > validity.
> 
> JE:-
> Firstly, Jim and myself have _entirely_ 
> different critiques of Hamilton's Rule.
> Jim's argument (as I understand it) is
> based on just his belief that evolution 
> occurs in nature using an infinite number 
> of levels of selection which by some sort
> of magic can all act simultaneously. 

Once again, John, you've mananged to misrepresent 
somebody's thinking.  In this instance I'm the 
victim.  Normally your victims are Darwin, Mendel, 
and Popper.  I guess maybe I should consider it a 
compliment to be included with such influential 
people.

This
> view remains incomprehensible and thus, 
> entirely non testable. Jim has never
> provided just  model sketch of how such
> a system could possibly work.
> 
> OTOH my view is based on a just
> single level of selection that I argue
> constitutes Darwin's original argument.

Ahaa!  John's backing down.  Previously John claimed 
that Darwin had proven that there was only one level 
of selection.  

> It is fully refutable meeting a minimal
> Popperian requirement for the sciences.

What's a minimal Popperian requirement.  Show us 
Popper's words where he supposedly established such?  
I've studied Popper and know for a fact that Popper 
never said anything even remoteley like this.

> __________________________________________
> I argue that the total number of fertile
> forms reproduced into one population 
> constitutes a Darwinian _maximand_ fitness.

But if you can't justify this except to misrepresent 
other people's thinking then what good is it?

> ___________________________________________
> 
> At the gene level this maximand represents 
> one epistatic fitness. This maximand cannot 
> be selected to be reduced, NO EXCEPTIONS
> providing a point of refutation for this
> conjecture.
> 
> Hamilton's argument remains based on just
> a heuristic concept of selfish geneism that 
> does allow the Darwinian maximand fitness
> total be selected to be reduced. This means
> either Darwin or Hamilton are correct; they
> both cannot be! I have proven that Hamilton's
> rule, as it stands with the total fitness of
> the actor deleted, cannot measure any difference
> between organism fitness altruism and organism
> fitness mutualism. This has resulted in fitness
> mutualism being incorrectly paraded as fitness 
> altruism. In this rule, which remains
> just 100% relative, the sign of c has no other
> choice but to remain entirely  arbitrary. However, 
> only the sign of c can be employed to measure any 
> difference between altruism and non altruism using
> Hamilton's Rule.
> 
> The argument I present remains basic. Without 
> at least one constant term included within the rule 
> it remains logically IMPOSSIBLE for the rule to be able
> to distinguish between fitness altruism and non altruism
> as a stand alone accounting device.
> I have shown that Hamilton et al remain in error by the 
> amount m which represents the so called base level fitness 
> that has been deleted from the rule. Only ONE case of
> altruism can be proven using the rule where this
> one case has been deleted from the rule:
> 
> 		rb-c > m
> 
> 
> Hamilton's Rule, which has been used as a stand 
> alone fitness accounting device for over 50 years
> to determine when organism fitness altruism can
> evolve in nature was at its very inception, and remains 
> today, utterly misused. A massive but false fitness 
> altruism industry has come into being during the 50 years
> or so that the rule has been misused to support organism
> fitness altruism after group selection failed to
> support it. The irony remains that Hamilton's rule 
> is also group selective because rb can and mostly
> does, constitute more than one fertile organism.
> Please note that the failure of Enron corp. was 
> based on corrupt accounting rules that, like Hamilton's
> rule,  remained 100% relative so that debits could
> become credits via accounting magic.
> 
> Hamilton's rule is exactly what I would expect
> if mathematicians decided to try to take over the
> science of biology. Mathematics is _not_ a science.
> Is anybody here prepared to argue that it is?
> Science has to be based on refutable conjecture but
> mathematics can validly be based on just irrefutable 
> axioms simply because mathematics does not need 
> to represent anything within nature whereas the 
> sciences are _required_ to do so.
> 
> The professionals that post here (and Jim McGinn)
> have proven themselves to be recalcitrant to my
> basic but fully refutable argument. The
> gene centric Neo Darwinists cannot even provide
> a single documented observation within nature 
> of a genomic gene being independently selected. 
> When pressed all they can come up with are meiotic 
> drive genes. They don't seem to realise that these 
> genes are heading for extinction _because_ they have 
> reduced the total fitness of the actor they reside 
> within. Because they just exist does not prove they 
> were selected _for_.  
> 
> The fact that:
> 
> 	(a) Hamilton's basic error of deleting the total 
> 	fitness of the actor could permeate the
> 	evolutionary theory sciences for over 50 years
> 
> 	(b) be evaded on a continuous basis within
> 	sbe discussion between myself and the professional
> 	Neo Darwinists that post here for over 4 years
> 
> proves to me that the current peer review system to be either
> corrupt, incompetent or both.
> 
> 
> I HAVE:-
> 
> 1) Provided a logically self consistent 
> argument that can easily be understood
> based on a proposed, single Darwinian 
> maximand fitness.
> 
> 2) Described an experiment (not just a
> model!) that can refute the fitness maximand
> I have provided.
> 
> In short, unlike most professional evolutionary
> theorists that post here (and Jim McGinn) I have 
> provided what science requires me to provide.

There's no peer-review board on this planet that is 
going to let you get away with misrepresenting other 
people's thinking.


> 
> My regards to all,
> 
> 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 11/29/04 9:35:38 PM