"Name And Address Supplied"
 wrote in message
news:cev3s0$17do$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> "Anon."  wrote
in message news:...
> > Name And Address Supplied wrote:
> > > "John Edser"  wrote in
message news:...
> > >
> >  
> > >>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.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > 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.
>
> 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. For example, if we have a positive b then positive c
> is associated with altruism, and negative c with mutualism. I regard
> Hamilton's rule as being most useful for conceptualisng the
> predictions made by more rigorous analyses, rather than being the
> starting point of an analysis itself. Hence my answer to John. But I
> don't think there is any disagreement here (between you and I, Bob).

May I make a suggestion here?  Some time ago, John asked my
interpretation of the quoted exchange between JE and BOH.
I answered:
------------quote from JM--------------
> My interpretation is that he thought you asked: "Does the
> rule discriminate between altruism and mutualism?  That
> is, is there some hidden mechanism in the rule that
> "notices" a difference between a positive c (i.e. a
> decrease in absolute fitness, indicating altruism)
> and a negative c (i.e. an increase in absolute
> fitness, indicating mutualism)?"
>
> My interpretation is that he answered: "No, there
> is no discrimination between these two situations
> within the rule.  The rule handles both cases without
> discriminating.  Of course, the answer you get may
> well be different in the two cases, but you are using
> the same rule in either case."
---------- end quote -------------------

Call the original JE question "question A".  Call the original
BOH response "answer A".  Call my interpretations "question B".
and "answer B".

John asserts (vehemently) that question A and question B mean
the same thing.  BOH says that answer A and answer B mean the
same thing.  John has agreed with this.  I have said that I agree
with answer B, though I am skeptical about the meaning of A.
NAS has just now pretty much said that he agrees with answer B.

So, since everyone is in agreement on B, but there is still some
confusion about A (except on John's part), why doesn't John stop
quoting A and replace it with B - which everyone seems to agree
on.  Then we can go back to discussing biology instead of arguing
over what was said and what was meant.

Unless, that is, John wishes to revise his claim that A and B
are equivalent.  Or worse, if he once again misquotes me as
agreeing to A based on his belief that A and B are equivalent.
---
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