"Anon."  wrote:-

> >>>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.

> >>BOH:-
> >>I think you only need to see the thread that I was answering to see the
> >>problems.  To make it absolutely clear: it is the use of the word
> >>"frequency" to mean "proportion" that is
problematic.

> > 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. As long as the logic makes sense
no misuse can be claimed even if the usage is
non conventional. Conversely, as long as the logic
does not make sense misuse is evident even if the
usage is an accepted convention. My argument is very
simple. A proportion is never enough to measure
something because it only constitutes a relative
measure. It is _impossible_ to form a relative measure
without a comparison of at least two _totals_. It
is these totals that determine the relative outcome
and absolutely nothing else. What these totals mean
and how they were measured is the critical argument
and not the resultant "proportion". This can only
mean that within population genetics "conventional usage"
they are attempting the impossible: "not using the term 
to mean a count, but a proportion".
 
> BOH:- 
> This is a separate issue to the one over the definition of fitness, so 
> I'm not gonig to enter into that debate again.  

JE:-
A "separate issue"? The gene centric view is concerned
with some measure of genes replicated as an objective
fitness measure! If this measure is "not using the term 
to mean a count, but a proportion" then it remains
meaningless as a biological fitness.

> BOH:-
> I've given you my 
> opinions on that many times, and it's clear that you won't accept them.

JE:-
As far as I can make out they were
contradictory. I reposted everything
you requested. You failed to comment.
I can only conclude that you are protecting
what you consider your own best interests at
the cost of the truth of the matter.

My 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 9/25/04 9:57:21 PM