> >>>JE:-
> >>>Previously you wrote:
> >>>"Basically, a frequency should be a count.
> >>>However, one can talk about a relative frequency, which is
a proportion
> >>>of a total count belonging to one species.  In population genetics,
> >>>frequency has been (mis-)used is this sense for a long time."
> >>>Do you mean by "basically, a frequency should be a count"
> >>>that gene frequencies within one population should be a
> >>>TOTAL count?

> >>BOH:-
> >>Err, for gene frequencies I bow down the to conventional usage within
> >>population genetics by not using the term to mean a count, but a
> >>proportion.

> > JE:-
> > You have mentioned that this constitutes
> > a "misuse". I am attempting to establish why you
> > suggest this is the case beyond just an argument
> > from convention.

> 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!

It appears that Hamilton's error (deleting the total
fitness of the actor from the rule) is one of a general
case of what Dr O'Hara has now recognised as a GENERAL
misuse: the substitution of a proportion for a total
fitness count. Perhaps Dr O'Hara would be perfectly content
to be paid in "proportions" rather than a annual total
salary?


> BOH:-
> You're flogging a dead horse, John.  The problem here is simply the use
> of "frequency" when "proportion" is meant:
"frequency" is used in the
> wrong place, and so is being mis-used.  Beyond the choice of words there
> is no problem.

JE:-
The problem is NOT just semantic it is logical
and _enormous_.

Population genetics models stumble about the place
like Mr Magoo because none of them can see a single
fitness total through myopic eyes just a "proportion",
yet it is this Mr Magoo who is dictating what is and what
is not evolution within evolutionary theory....

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 9/28/04 1:34:54 PM