jimmcginn{at}yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message
news:...
> name_and_address_supplied{at}hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied)
wrote in message news:...
> > jimmcginn{at}yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message
news:...
> > > name_and_address_supplied{at}hotmail.com (Name And Address
Supplied) wrote 
> > > 
> > > > > You are wrong to believe in the validity of a 
> > > > > concept despite the fact you are unable to 
> > > > > demonstrate its validity.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > So i am to demonstrate its validity, but not mathematically?
> > > 
> > > Why no math.
> > > 
> > 
> > I mentioned earlier that Hamilton derived the rule very elegantly in
> > his 1970 paper, and so if pressed for a mathematical derivation it
> > would pretty much be a transcript of that.  But clearly, that won't
> > do; if that was going to convince you then it already would have done.
> >  I am assuming, of course, that you have seen the derivation, that you
> > have pursued this matter in the existing literature before launching
> > polemic onto sbe?
> 
> Elegantly?
> 

It's entirely subjective, but yes, I regard it as elegant.

> > 
> > > > And any
> > > > empirical support i offer will be rejected as 'anecdotal'?
> > > 
> > > Huh?
> > 
> > You rejected the wealth of sex allocation data confirming the validity
> > of Hamilton's rule as "anecdotal" in a previous post.
> 
> Confirming?
> 

I just did a quick Google search for "sex ratio hamilton empirical
support", and stumbled across a paper by Pickering et al (2000) Evol
Ecol Res 2, 171-184.  I quote the following from that paper:

- - - - - - - 

This is one of the most well-verified areas in evolutionary biology. 
It is able to explain considerable variation in sex ratio across
populations and species (Hamilton, 1967; Charnov, 1982; Waage, 182;
Herre, 1985,1987;Wrensch and Ebbert, 1993; Herre et al, 1997; West and
Herre, 1998a).  Furthermore, individuals of numerous species have been
shown to facultatively adjust the sex ratio of their offspring in
response to variable local mate competition (Charnov, 1982; Werren,
1987; Godfray, 1994; Herre et al, 1997).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The "well-verified" area they refer to is local mate competition, a
theoretical application of Hamilton's rule, presented by Hamilton in a
classic paper which i really do advise you to read.

> > 
> > > 
> > > > What does
> > > > that leave?  Aside from random assertion.
> > > 
> > > Isn't this all you have now?
> > > 
> > 
> > When you strip away theory and empirical support, this is the only
> > avenue that is left.  Which is, presumably, why it features so heavily
> > in your messages to this board.
> > 
> > > > I am not going to lower
> > > > myself to your level.
> > > 
> > > Spoken like a true believer.
> > 
> > You criticize me for failing to get into the "IS NOT",
"IS SO", "IS
> > NOT" assertion game?  Grow up, Jim.
> 
> No, I criticize you for being so goddamn lazy.  Nothing I've done is
> stopping you from sitting down and working it all out on your own.
> 

Oh, but I have Jim.  And I am happy with the maths.  And i have read
of and have  witnessed first hand the empirical support for the theory
which you are so eager to dismiss.  You can go and find the relevant
literature, so I am not going to waste my time educating here, online.
 But what I am interested in looking into is your disagreement with
Hamilton's Rule.  If you tell me *exactly* why the rule fails, then I
will marvel at your new discovery, or else attempt to point out where
you have gone wrong.  Having a paradigm shifted is a pleasure, so i
will take the time to listen to what you have to say.  But if you have
something of worth to add to inclusive fitness theory, then I assume
that you must be familiar with it already, so I don't see the point of
laying it all out here.  Point to the error in the framework, Jim. 
That should be much quicker for the both of us.
---
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 11/1/02 12:03:54 PM