John Edser wrote:
>>>>BOH:_
>>>>It _is_ only an argument from convention - from the
conventional use of
>>>>the word "frequency".  As Guy has also pointed
out to you, in population
>>>>genetics "frequency" is used to mean
"proportion", and is calculated in
>>>>the same way as any other proportion.
>>
>>>JE:-
>>>These conventions are NEVER just conventions, they effect
>>>logical outcomes, i.e. they can effect what something
>>>critical actually means within the science of biology.
>>>What you seem to fail to understand is that restricting
>>>gene freq. counts to only mean a "proportion" within
>>>population genetics models alters the logic of fitness
>>>counts within evolutionary theory. How? The TOTALS
>>>that allow the proportion become deleted. It is these
>>>totals that provide all the selective logic!
> 
> 
>>BOH:-
>>But if we used the word "proportion" instead, then the
logic would still
>>be the same.
> 
> 
> JE:-
> Absolutely not. A proportion is just a relative
> measure. 

And remains so whether we call it "proportion",
"frequency" or "melvin".

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 9/29/04 4:43:57 PM