Guy Hoelzer  wrote:

> > JE:-
> > Is it not true to argue that the population genetic
> > misuse of "proportion" represents a case of restricting
> > "frequency" (in this case gene frequency) to just
> > a relative measure without reference to a total
> > measure?

> GH:-
> No.  Population geneticists have not "misused" the term 
> "proportion," AFAIK.
> Neither have they "restricted" the meaning of
"frequency."  They simply
> should have used the word "proportion" for their purposes, instead of
> "frequency," all along.  

JE:-
Such an event would make a mockery of
evolutionary theory because a proportion
without detailed knowledge of the totals that 
form it is not a sufficient measure to determine
how something can be selected. This is because
any selective event is a comparison of 
a minimum of two totals. The production
of these totals produces _all_ the Darwinian
competition while the resulting proportion  
only represents the end of that competition.
Only viewing the end of the race tells you
nothing about how it was run, i.e. its 
actual cause.


> GH:- 
> A proportion is indeed a "relative 
> measure," which
> is entirely appropriate and explicit within population genetics. 

JE:-
It remains "appropriate and explicit" as long 
as population genetics does not seek to describe
a fitness race that it cannot possibly see. As long 
as  population genetics is not being used to determine 
how x can be selected over y then its use is 
appropriate. However, this is not the case
re: its historical or current usage.
The problem remains that population is basing 
misused to determine how something can be
selected, e.g. Hamilton's rule. Such
an event constitutes a misuse of population
genetics.

> GH:-
> It is not
> "just" an absolute measure.

JE:-
The term "absolute measure" refers to
the missing totals that are _firstly_ 
required to make any "proportion". It
is these and not the proportion that
are causative to selection. Only
these totals can be maximised within
nature and not their "proportion".
Thus it is the biological fitness
totals and not their comparison
which constitutes a testable 
biological maximand.

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 9/27/04 5:58:24 AM