John Edser wrote:
> "Anon."  wrote:-
> Subject: Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?
> 
> 
> 
>>>>JE:-
>>>>Here we go 'round  the mulberry bush....
>>>>
>>>>--------------quote----------------------
>>>>
>>>>1) 22/01/2004:
>>>>
>>>>JE:-
>>>>What is the difference between
>>>>a reduced positive c and a negative c?
>>>>If c was an abolute measure of fitness
>>>>then yes, a real difference exists. However
>>>>c is only a relative fitness cost and not
>>>>an absolute fitness cost, so what is the
>>>>difference?
>>>>
>>>>BOH:-
>>>>
>>>>As far as the rule is concerned, none.
>>>>
>>>>----------- end quote --------------------
>>>>
>>>>For the 6th (?) time and counting:
>>>>
>>>>Do you agree or disagree with the
>>>>answer Dr O'Hara provided? A simple
>>>>YES or NO will suffice.
>>>>
>>>
> 
>>>NAS:-
>>>No, a simple yes or no will not suffice to your question as it has
>>>been put.
>>>My answer is: I disagree with Dr O'Hara.
>>
> 
>>BOH:- 
>>Oh!  The point behind the statement I made there was that the rule still 
>>holds whether c is positive or negative, i.e. it can still be used to 
>>decide whether a behaviour will invade a population.  
> 
> 
> JE:-
> Yes, the rule "can still be used to 
> decide whether a behaviour will invade 
> a population" on strictly a RELATIVE basis.
> 
> ______________________________________________
> Why did you leave out "on strictly a RELATIVE
> basis"? 
> ______________________________________________
> 
Because it's not necessary.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf H„llstr”min katu 2b)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland

Telephone: +358-9-191 51479
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 51400
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org
---
ţ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/5/04 4:31:50 PM