Guy Hoelzer  wrote:

> >> BOH:-
> >> 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.
> >> So, I think we just have to be aware that there is a mis-use of
> >> terminology.

> > JE:-
> > Would Dr O'Hara please expand on his recent admission
> > (above) that: "In population genetics, frequency has
> > been (mis-)used is this sense for a long time"
> > and provide a simple example of such misuse.
> > What has been the effect on evolutionary theory
> > of consistent long term misuse?

> GH:-
> To avoid confusion, note that Dr. O'Hara never suggested that the use of
> "frequency" in statistics, and more to the point in population
> genetics, was
> ever accompanied by faulty logic in the development of population genetics
> theory.  He merely asserted that the definition of the term
> "frequency" was
> distorted in conventional usage in this discipline.

JE:-
Since sbe readers are not necessarily population
genetics specialists, could Dr Hoelzer please
expand: "the definition of the term  "frequency"
was distorted in conventional  usage in this
discipline" and provide a simple example.

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 9/23/04 4:56:08 PM