Anon. wrote:
> 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.

So you're saying it was your intention to be wrong?

> > 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.

Yes, like I said in other posts, it's only
peripherally indicative of such.  It's kind of like
measuring the size of a cars tires to get some idea
of a cars length.  Bigger tires will tend to
indicate longer cars.

In reality the best way to measure a cars length is
to actually measure it's length.  Likewise, the best
way to employ genes to measure the relative
similarity of two biological entities is to measure
the full (phenotypically active) genome.

The reason Hamilton and other neoDarwinists hit upon
IBD is because the thinking that underlies the other
parts of their formula was so completely mangled and
genes IBD was one thing that made the formula
*appear* to make sense.  In actuality Hamilton's rule
is layer upon layer of bad thinking that so confuses
its audience that it completely overcomes their
ability to suspend disbelief.

> > 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.

I'm human and I assumed you were also.

> 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.

It would appear that what you consider a proper
reading and what I consider a proper reading are
two different things.

Jim
---
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 12/15/04 6:28:20 AM