Name And Address Supplied wrote:-

> > >>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.  Obviously 
> > changing 
> > the value of c may change the prediction, but the rule would still be 
> > used.  Therfore as far as the rule is concerned, there is no 
> > difference, 
> > even if there would be a diffeence in a particular application 
> > of the rule.

> NAS:-
> Right, I agree with this. I would say that the sign of c makes no
> difference to the validity of Hamilton's rule (which is always valid,
> as it is a mathematical truism) but it does make a difference for the
> interpretation.

JE:-
The Mad Hatter "mathematical truism" is 
now giving away (absolutely) free gifts
to almost everybody he likes at
his famous Dept Of Biology Tea Party. 
His gift: everybody remains correct 
except (of course) JE who remains
a Neo Darwinistic tribal outcast
(with thanks).

NAS and BOH _seriously_ maintain that
as long as the mathematics remains valid, 
the biology (the "application") doesn't 
matter. ERGO: No matter if the critical
case of the rule that allows organism
fitness altruism is proven biologically 
meaningless, it remains valid mathematics 
and that is ALL that matters. Their
argument demeans the science of biology.

> NAS:-
> For example, if we have a positive b then positive c
> is associated with altruism, and negative c with mutualism.

JE:-
Yes, it does not matter at all to
the science of biology that the
rule cannot measure any difference
between just a reduced donation
and an investment cost by the actor. 

Did anybody here have shares in 
Enron?

Dear oh dear..

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 8/6/04 5:39:21 PM