"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> > > > > JE:-
> > > > > You have failed to distinguish between just a simplified
> > > > > model and the theory it was simplified from. This provides
> > > > > a real danger that you may allow just an over simplified
> > > > > model to invalidly  compete and win against the theory
> > > > > from which is was simplified/over simplified which I am
> > > > > sure you would agree would be an absurdity.
>  
> > > > NAS:-
> > > > "simplified" implies "different", ..
>  
> > > JE:-
> > > No, "simplified" should not imply "different"
> > > for just a _model of a theory but it must for
> > > any contesting theory. 
>  
> > NAS:- 
> > Empty assertion.
> 
> JE:-
> No, your sentence "empty assertion"
> was just an empty assertion because 
> it contained nothing to back it up.
> OTOH I have provided an objective
> difference between a model and 
> a theory. The fact you don't like
> my argument has no meaning re:
> this discussion.

I'm sorry John, but I cannot see how 'simplified' can escape from
implying 'different'.

> > > JE:-
> > > My Example is Hamilton's rule
> > > which can be proven to be just a over simplification 
> > > of Darwinism which it invalidly seeks to compete
> > > against.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > Hamilton's rule is entirely general. You only think it is a limited
> > simplification because you do not understand what it is.
> 
> JE:-
> No, Hamilton's rule is just a mathematical
> "toy" model (to quote Prof Felsenstein).

Well, I disagree with both of you.

> Also, according to Prof. Felsenstein
> all models are non testable. You only 
> think that Hamilton's rule is
> "entirely general" because you 
> do not understand the difference
> between a non testable model and 
> the testable theory it was over
> simplified from.
>

.. . . or perhaps it is that you misunderstand Hamilton's rule.
 
> > > JE:-
> > > In this model the total Darwinian 
> > > fitness of the actor has been deleted.
> > > If you delete the most important absolute assumption 
> > > within Darwinian theory you are required to substitute 
> > > another, i.e. some other total fitness measure. 
>  
> > NAS:-
> > Another assertion. Have you ever demonstrated 
> > that anyone has to do
> > anything of the sort?
> 
> JE:-
> Yes. It is just basic logic. Unless you
> define an absolute point of reference a 
> relative comparison fails to have
> meaning. Would a repeat of the description
> (that is commonly given) of the relative 
> movement two trains where the train
> that remained stationary appeared to 
> move, help?
>

If I understand what you are saying, then I do not believe that
neodarwinism deletes absolute reproductive success, although sometimes
it might be implicit in measures of relative reproductive success. And
since it is the relative measure which matters, this is not a problem.
 
> I Have provided a definition of Darwinian
> fitness that can be tested to refutation,
> i.e. it meets the minimal Popperian standard.
> This definition is based on a total fitness,
> i.e. is an absolute fitness assumption.
> I have outlined the test necessary to refute
> it. This test provides the only possible way
> to halt all natural selection within a natural 
> population (not just within a super simplified 
> model) while at the same time providing a test
> for the Neo Darwinian myth that the random
> process of sampling error can cause evolution
> in the absence of selection. None of these
> simple concepts and tests seem to have dawned 
> on the Neo Darwinist mind because it remains
> fruitlessly grounded in just hand waving
> concepts of relative fitness.
>

In terms of the predictions of neodarwinism, why should we bother
about absolute fitness?

> > > JE:- 
> > > This 
> > > Hamilton failed to do. When pushed, Hamilton et al 
> > > just supposes multi levels to attempt to fill the 
> > > void, i.e. they attempt to  have it "all ways" 
> > > making the theory non testable.  
> > > Until Hamilton et al come up with a substitute total 
> > > fitness for the actor that is different to Darwinian
> > > total fitness, they are only misusing an oversimplified
> > > model. Models are not designed to compete against the
> > > theory they were simplified from, they are only designed
> > > to help test that theory via hypothetical situations
> > > where known biological variables are either eliminated
> > > to zero or expanded to infinity, e.g. assuming just 
> > > random mating or an infinite population. Models only 
> > > allow _unreal_, i.e. artificial situations which are 
> > > _simple_ to monitor. They remain an essential tool but
> > > are utterly misused if they attempt to compete against 
> > > the theory they were simplified/over simplified, from.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > You throw the term 'model' around..
> 
> JE:-
> More erratic denigration from NAS.
> I have _defined_ a model and a theory
> and illustrated the massive difference
> that exists between them but NAS still
> refuses to just say if he/she discriminates
> between a model and a theory. Sitting
> on the fence is tough on your backside...
> 
> >snip
>  <
> > NAS:-
> > .. 'Model' does not have
> > a single standard definition in science.
> 
> JE:-
> Given that this is the case (I do not
> agree that it is the case) do you
> or don't you equate a model with
> a theory?
>

What I would like the word 'model' to refer to is not so important. In
terms of this discussion, what is important is that I understand what
you mean by 'model', and at this time I am not confident that I do.
 
> > > > NAS:-
> > > > and I do not see any problem in
> > > > letting different theories / models compete.
>  
> > > JE:-
> > > Do you discriminate between 
> > > a model and a theory?
>  
> > NAS:-
> > See above.
> 
> JE:-
> NAS's evasion is endless...
> What NAS said has no bearing
> on the question. Please answer
> the question: Do you discriminate 
> between a model and a theory?
>

If you really want an answer: then 'no'. Because I would prefer to use
a word other than 'model' when describing whatever it is that I am
discriminating from a 'theory', since the word 'model' is commonly
used to be synonymous with 'theory' and is also commonly used to mean
alot of other things.
   
> > > > > JE:-
> > > > > How an allele's frequency changes in a population
> > > > > and how a species abundance changes in a community
> > > > > can only be explained using a testable theory. Please
> > > > > provide or just acknowledge, such a theory.
>  
> > > > NAS:-
> > > > Price's Theorem.
>  
> > > JE:-
> > > Provide a point of refutation 
> > > for Price's Theorem 
>  
> > NAS:-
> > Price's Theorem is a mathematical truism.
> 
> JE:-
> Mathematical truisms are irrefutable.
> I remind you, yet again, that this
> is a science list and not a mathematics
> list. Here, mathematics is supposed to be 
> employed to help test biological concepts and 
> not hinder the testing of them by attempting
> to replace refutable biology with irrefutable
> mathematics.

Actually, I use Price's theorem (1) to generate rough and ready models
which are testable, and (2) as a conceptual aid in understanding
evolutionary change.

> > > JE:-
> > > and prove
> > > that the theorem is different
> > > to Darwinian theory, i.e. prove
> > > it is not just a misused model 
> > > of Darwinism.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > Price's Theorem describes evolutionary 
> > change in completely general
> > terms. 
> 
> JE:-
> Like Hamilton's rule attempts to do?
>

Hamilton's rule is a restatement of Price's theorem, making certain
implicit relations explicit for the purposes of aiding
conceptualisation of social evolution.
 
> NAS:-
> Perhaps it has been misused, just as Hamilton's rule has been
> misused. This does not make it *wrong*, or a false statement.
> 
> JE:-
> Please be more precise so sbe reader's
> can understand the critical point
> you are making. Supply an example
> of the misuse of Hamilton's rule and 
> define why this use constituted a misuse.

In the thread 'A Declaration of Meaning', in a post dated 1st August,
John Edser asserts that r in Hamilton's rule is a probability of
identity by descent. While this may sometimes be the case, it is not
true in general (for example, probabilities cannot be negative but
relatedness can) and so general application of this definition
constitutes misuse of the rule, at least potentially.

> > > > > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > > > > This is what Einstein taught
the world. This 3rd
> > > > > > > > > defined fixed point provides
the frame of reference.
> > > > > > > > > In evolutionary theory this is
a missing objective absolute
> > > > > > > > > fitness that _does_ exist
within Darwinism but remains
> > > > > > > > > entirely _absent_ from Neo
Darwinism. Tragically,
> > > > > > > > > in their attempt to defend the
indefensible Neo
> > > > > > > > > Darwinians junked Popper and
embraced post modernism
> > > > > > > > > which can be summed up by their jingle:
> > > > > > > > > "everything is
relative". Everything is the sciences
> > > > > > > > > is not relative! Science is
based on absolute assumptions
> > > > > > > > > that are testable. For
evolutionary theory, the only
> > > > > > > > > absolute assumption that
matters is ANY assumption
> > > > > > > > > of absolute fitness that can
be tested (can be
> > > > > > > > > uniquely verified or refuted).
The term "unique"
> > > > > > > > > strictly applies to any other
idea on the table
> > > > > > > > > and not just, any other idea.
>  
> > > > > > > >  NAS:-
> > > > > > > > I do not follow.
>  
> > > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > > I do not have the time to
> > > > > > > keep rewriting what I am
> > > > > > > arguing. The
> > > > > > > above was non ambiguous
> > > > > > > non self contradictory
> > > > > > > and self explanatory.
> > > > > > > Please re read it and
> > > > > > > provide a comment.
>  
> > > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > > Okay. It is a mass of assertions. Why can we
not test the 
> > > > > > theory of
> > > > > > relative fitnesses?
>  
> > > > > JE:-
> > > > > Unless you provide an absolute fitness
> > > > > assumption you have no reference point
> > > > > to measure __anything_ against. As an
> > > > > obvious example, in Special Relativity,
> > > > > if c was not a testable maximum, i.e.
> > > > > was just another variable within E=Mc^2
> > > > > then these many possible values of E
> > > > > are just, incorrect i.e. here the equation
> > > > > would be mathematically correct put only
> > > > > provide _nonsense_ for the science of
> > > > > physics.
>  
> > > > NAS;-
> > > > I think your point would be clearer if you spoke 
> > > > in terms of biology,
> > > > not physics.
>  
> > > JE:-
> > > Physics is simpler than biology so 
> > > exactly the same epistemological point is 
> > > much more _clearly_ made using it. As Long 
> > > as the point is clearly made that is all 
> > > that matters. 
>  
> > NAS:-
> > Well, you certainly did not achieve that.
> 
> JE:-
> But you wrote: "I think your point would 
> be clearer if you spoke in terms of biology.."
> This implies that the point was made
> otherwise you would have written something
> like: Your point was not made so please
> repeat it using a biological example.
> 

No, my response implied that I was giving you the benefit of the
doubt, that I suspected that you had a legitimate point to make.
However, the point certainly was not clear to me.

> I don't expect you to agree with
> the point I was making.
> However, I cannot make this point 
> any easier to comprehend with any
> other example. Suggesting that
> you don't comprehend it is just 
> evidence for evasion or proof
> you are simple minded. I don't 
> think you are simple minded
> so you must be evading answering,
> then again I might be wrong ;-)

If you cannot see any alternatives, then by all means, call me simple
minded. Of course, that is much easier than striving for some sort of
coherent argument.
 
> > > JE;-
> > > The main point is you 
> > > have tacitly agreed. Please make your 
> > > agreement/disagreement, explicit.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > I disagree. 
> 
> JE:-
> Thank you for your unambiguous
> answer. I still think you
> didn't understand what the point was.
> Here it is (again) in very general
> terms: Do you agree or disagree
> that an absolute point of reference
> must exist for just a relative 
> comparison to make sense in
> the biological sciences?

I'm not sure if I've given it much thought, in these very general
terms. In terms of fitness and the action of natural selection, then
no, I do not agree that an absolute measure of fitness is necessary to
predict the action of natural selection.

> > > JE:-
> > > Unless the total fitness of the
> > > actor is included within Hamilton's
> > > inequality : rb>c, then _everything_
> > > in it is just another variable. This being
> > > the case, not a single point of reference
> > > exists for his rule, i.e. logically it 
> > > is the same as E=Mc^2 where c is just
> > > another variable providing correct
> > > mathematics but nonsense physics.
> > > Because the total fitness for the actor
> > > is missing from Hamilton's rule no difference 
> > > _can_ exist between a reduced positive c and a 
> > > negative c. 
>  
> > NAS:-
> > I am not sure what you mean by c in this instance. 
> 
> JE:-
> What Hamilton et al mean by c.
> The value c is the cost of b within 
> Hamilton's rule.
> 

This implies that the act which generates the c also generates the b.
Hamilton's rule is more general than that.
 
> > > JE:-
> > > Such an absurdity happens
> > > every time you attempt to form an inequality
> > > or an equation within the sciences that
> > > does not explicitly refer to a general term
> > > that represents a stated maximum/minimum/constant,
> > > i.e. an _objective_ absolute _assumption_.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > Funny then that when we go out into nature and look at what the
> > creatures are doing it seems that we managed to make pretty good
> > predictions despite all these incomprehensible philosophical failures
> > which you insist neodarwinism is guilty of. Maybe the beasts are in on
> > the neodarwinist conspiracy too . . .
> 
> JE:-
> I am NOT alleging any nutty conspiracy I
> am simply alleging model misuse most probably
> caused by a political bias operating within
> evolutionary theory. It would most certainly
> not be the first time. Apparently such a 
> concept is beyond the pail re: people who 
> are paid to create and use these models,
> i.e. nobody is allowed to accuse them of 
> model misuse. Such self serving nonsense
> is beyond the pail.
>

I can assure you that noone is paying me to use such models per se. 
 
> It is possible to be right for the wrong
> reason and wrong for the right reason.
> What the sciences aim for is to
> be right for the right reason. What
> science wishes to avoid at all costs 
> is being wrong for the wrong reason
> because only this gets science absolutely
> nowhere.
> 

I think we can agree on this at least.

> >snip<
>  
> > > > > JE:-
> > > > > You have (again) failed to fully
> > > > > answer this question. How can this
> > > > > marginal fitness cost differ to
> > > > > BOTH a relative AND absolute
> > > > > fitness cost?
>  
> > > > NAS;-
> > > > Because w[x], w[x]/E[w], and dw/dx are all distinct, right?
>  
> > > JE:-
> > > Note: Something can only be
> > > a maximum/minimum/constant OR
> > > just a variable, i.e. IT CANNOT 
> > > BE BOTH within the SAME theory.
> > > Do you agree or disagree?
>  
> > NAS:-
> > x is a variable, w a function. 
> 
> JE:-
> Please answer the question:
> How can "marginal fitness" be
> neither a relative fitness
> or an absolute fitness within
> any rational theory of biology?

Because marginal fitness is the regression of fitness against trait
value, which could be negative, whereas absolute fitness w[x] and
relative fitness w[x]/E[w] are necessarily positive.
---
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 8/2/04 4:53:02 PM