I've no idea what Jim is trying to achieve here: he is resurrecting a 
thread from March 2000, but I see no reason to alter my response.  If he 
wants a specific recommendation, then I would go for Maynard Smith's 
textbook "Evolutionary Genetics":
-1800659>
And if he wants to know why using relatedness to measure the degree to 
which the phenotype of one individual can be predicted from that in 
another, then he should read up on quantitative genetics.  There are 
good textbooks by Falconer & MacKay, or Walsh & Lynch.  He will find 
that relatedness is part of this, but there are many other factors too.

Jim McGinn wrote:
> Anon.  wrote 
> 
> JMc:
> 
>>>Hamilton's arguments don't work.  They just appear 
>>>to work because those that think they do work are 
>>>using Hamilton's arguments themselves to verify its 
>>>conceptual accuracy.  This is evident in the blatant
>>>circularity of their logic.  (For example, Bob's 
>>>constant assertion that relatedness is valid because 
>>>this is the way it is defined.)
> 
> 
> Bob:
> 
>>If you mean me, I'm not sure I ever said this.  I've 
>>said that relatedness is defined as the probability 
>>of two individuals sharing an allele IBD, and my claim 
>>that this is useful (valid?) springs from the fact 
>>that this concept comes out of Hamilton's maths as 
>>being useful.
> 
> 
> JMc:
> You just made my point for me, Bob. You just declared 
> that it is useful (valid?) because it comes out of 
> Hamilton's maths.
> 
> 
> 
> JMc:
> 
>>>Maybe some way to inject some clarity into this 
>>>discussion is to first attempt to get some 
>>>consensus as to what R (relatedness) in Hamilton's
>>>equation is supposed to represent:
>>>
>>>I believe the R (relatedness) in Hamilton's 
>>>equation is supposed to represent the degree that 
>>>the behavior and morphology in one lifeform can be 
>>>predicted in another lifeform.
> 
> 
> Bob:
> 
>>Obviously this is wrong, as any purusal of explanations 
>>of Hamilton's work will show you.  Read a textbook!
> 
> 
> JMc:
> Note how cleverly Bob avoids actually answering the 
> question.  Instead he attempts to send us on a wild goose 
> chase (he didn't even tell us which textbook).  This is 
> a tactic that is typical to the entrenched majority.
> 
> For you, bob, it's kind of like the biblical saying as to 
> why something is true, "Because my son, it is written."  
> 
> This (the degree that the behavior and morphology in one
> lifeform can be predicted in another lifeform) is what 
> relatedness is *supposed* to be about.  In desperation 
> Hamilton latched onto genes IBD because this was the 
> only thing that made his model *seem* to work.  
> 
> --
> Jim McGinn
> 
> "In order for a scientific revolution to occur,
>   most scientists have to be wrong"
>               -- Bob Clark
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 


-- 
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 12/6/04 1:26:16 PM