Name And Address Supplied wrote:-
>snip<

> > > > JE:-
> > > > The fact that Hamilton's original paper was rejected by
> > > > the peer review process and the admittance by NAS that
> > > > only confusion reigns among biologist re: what Hamilton's
> > > > ideas actually mean confirms the fact that
> > > > epistemological confusion abounds within evolutionary
> > > > theory concerning the _correct_ use of mathematical
> > > > models within a science of biology. I have attempted
> > > > to raise this thorny issue on many different occasions. It
> > > > has always been evaded. Neo Darwinists act as if Karl Popper
> > > > never even existed, something like the way Stalin acted as
> > > > if Mendel had never existed. It seems clear to me
> > > > that RN's point re: people have status positions to protect
> > > > against "outsiders" who can only pose a
threat to them, is
> > > > correct. However, science does not have
"outsiders", it only
> > > > deals  in testable  ideas. The only outsiders that science
> > > > allows are non testable ideas. Neo Darwinism in general and
> > > > Hamilton in particular, remain non testable theories of nature.
> > > > They can only be tested to non verification which is not
> > > > definitive. No wonder Neo Darwinists have decided to throw
> > > > out Karl Popper.

> > > NAS:-
> > > John, I've read Popper, and I don't see how you are reaching this
> > > conclusion.

> > JE:-
> > Please list at least one point of refutation
> > for Hamilton's rule (as a single proposition).
> > Please do not make the error of providing
> > just a point of non verification or confuse
> > the rule with what it purports to be able
> > to measure.

> NAS:-
> I'm really not sure what you want me to do. 

JE:-
Then could not have understood what
you have read re: Karl Popper.

A point of refutation is an _exact_ but _prohibited_
observation of _nature_ and not just an allowed
observation that just never eventuated.  

Any prohibited  observation remains a logically sound 
observation that must _never_ become documented within
nature, e.g. within E = Mc^2, the defined maximal
velocity of c must never be exceeded otherwise the 
entire proposition stands refuted. Lower values
of c as a maximand are logically sound
but stand refuted. These can can constitute
logically sound models but such an
oversimplified model cannot validy
replace or contest the theory it was
simplified from. If no term
within E =Mc^2 was a constant then
Einstein's equation remains mathematically 
sound but irrational. Such an equation cannot 
represent a valid proposition for the 
physical sciences.

I repeat: unless Hamilton's Rule contains
at least one constant value, as a STAND
ALONE FITNESS ACCOUNTING DEVICE used for
over 50 years to measure when OFA can
evolve, it remains _irrational_. This
means that it does not matter if the
mathematics is correct, the rule is
NOT sufficient, as it stands, to
measure when OFA can evolve.

> NAS:-
> It is a mathematically
> proven fact - what more needs to be done?

JE:-
I repeat: mathematics is NOT a science
so that alone, it cannot prove/refute 
anything about NATURE.

Just a mathematical proof does NOT
constitute a valid theory about 
ANYTHING WITHIN NATURE. Hamilton's
Rule, as you have admitted is just
a mathematically correct concept. 
This does NOT mean it is a biological
proven concept. To become a 
rational biological accounting
device the total fitness of the
actor has to become fully restored
to Hamilton's Rule to provide the
rule with a frame of reference for
fitness. 

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 11/22/04 9:40:51 PM