Jim McGinn wrote:
> Anon. wrote:
> 
>>I've no idea what Jim is trying to achieve
>>here:
> 
> 
> This is what I was trying to achieve:
> 
> 
>>. . . using relatedness to measure the degree
>>to which the phenotype of one individual can
>>be predicted from that in another, . . .
> 
> 
> You just blew it, Bob.  It's plainly demonstrable
> (provable) that relatedness does not measure the
> degree to which the phenotype of one individual
> can be predicted from that in another.  

Yes.  That was my point.

In fact
> it has nothing at all to do with such.  

But this is not true, as you would know if you had read Lynch & Walsh. 
  There is a connection between the two, but it involves other factors 
as well.

You and
> I have R = 0.  Nevertheless in terms of our
> respective phenotypes we are highly similar, well
> over 99% using whatever scale you choose.
> 
If you were interested in cross-species comparisons, then you should 
have stated it.  As it happens, by making cross-species comparisons, the 
base population is much wider (it includes all of the populations), so 
we will have R>0.  Had you read Maynard Smith properly, you would know 
that we have to specify the baseline from which we assume R=0.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2b)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland

Telephone: +358-9-191 51479
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 51400
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: www.jnr-eeb.org
---
ž RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2į’* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/13/04 4:43:18 PM