Jim McGinn wrote:

> > JE:-
> > 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.

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

JE:-
The misrepresentation is all yours.
I have stated my case. It remains
refutable. Please provide your
entirely missing, refutation.

If I have misrepresented yourself,
Popper, Mendel or Darwin please
provide the quotes that prove this
forthwith or provide an apology. To do 
neither proves you are an _unethical_ 
person. This means that you are not a fit 
and proper person to undertake scientific
discussion.

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 12/6/04 6:36:09 AM