"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:cp67us$2ue8$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> JE:-
> Two rules historically exist and not just one:
>
> 1) Haldane's Rule
>
> 2) Hamilton's Rule.
>
> These rules are different but remain
> confused within the literature.
>
> Haldane's Rule was derived
> from Haldane's discussion in a pub
> where he suggested he would sacrifice
> himself for two brothers etc only because
> 2*0.5 = 1 where sibs are related 0.5. [snip]

John, you are welcome to make your case that there is confusion
between Haldane's pub argument and Hamilton's kin selection
argument.  But please don't add to the confusion by calling the
Haldane argument "Haldane's Rule".

In ordinary biological discourse, there already is a "Haldane's Rule"
and it has nothing to do with altruism and sociobiology.  Look it
up.  It deals with mules and the like.



> Here is my challenge: Provide any rule
> you like, I don't care what it specifically
> refers to. If the rule is used as a stand
> alone measuring device as Hamilton's is,
> then without at least one constant term
> the rule may be logical but NOT
> RATIONAL.

John, you will have to explain what you mean in saying that
Hamilton's rule is used as a "stand alone measuring device".
As I use the term "measurement", I don't see the rule as
measuring anything.  I don't think that anyone, except perhaps
Dr. Hoelzer, has ever suggested that it measures anything.  I
realize that you use the term "measurement" in a different sense
than other people.  Since that is the case, the onus is on you
to explain how you are using the term and how Hamilton's rule is
used (misused?) by neo-Darwinists to make "measurements".

Dr. Hoelzer, If you are reading this, you might wish to clarify
what you meant in suggesting, if you did, that the rule has a role
in the practice of "measurement".
---
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 12/10/04 9:34:01 PM