***** Continued From Previous Message *****
eads to incorrect
> > > > predictions.
>  
> > > JE:-
> > > IF "absolute fitness is not the appropriate maximand,
> > > i.e. leads to incorrect predictions" THEN relative
> > > fitness must be an appropriate maximand for any
> > > correct prediction i.e. YOU HAVE provided a default
> > > alternative but you are foolishly attempting to hide
> > > it. Now why is that?
>  
> > NAS;-
> > Because the true maximand is not of immediate interest to me.
> 
> JE:-
> That is logically the same as suggesting
> to Einstein that c, the maximal velocity
> of light in a vacuum "is not of immediate
> interest" to you because you wish to
> maintain M (mass) and t (time) as constants
> in the way Newton defined them, i.e.
> it is just a load of reactionary nonsense.

Unfortunately I cannot claim to the depth of insight into general
relativity that you boast.
 
> > NAS:-
> > Of immediate interest is the demonstration that it is not always absolute
> > number of fertile offspring. One step at a time, John.
> 
> JE:-
> The FIRST step is to identify
> your own IMPLICIT maximand so
> sbe reader's can COMPARE yours to
> the one I have suggested. You do have
> one but you do not wish to _explicitly_
> identify it and thus expose it to possible
> refutation. You are simply protecting
> the maximand you _prefer_. It is childish
> nonsense to insist that you only need to
> refute the one I have provided.

This is plain wrong. Number theorists are able to show that previous
attempts at proving Goldbach's conjecture are flawed, even though they
cannot offer an alternative proof.

Of course, I now expect to be admonished again for mentioning
mathematics in a newsgroup devoted only to biology. And physics,
apparently. And creationism.

> > > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > > 2) On the more important absolute level:
> > > > > > > You deny that an absolute fitness is even
> > > > > > > required. In principle, your position
> > > > > > > remains absurd. In effect you are suggesting
> > > > > > > that no testable point of reference needs
> > > > > > > to exist within Neo Darwinism for any
> > > > > > > comparative (relative) measure, which is
> > > > > > > absurd.
>  
> > > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > > The reference is the population average,
which appears on the
> > > > > > denominator of the more appropriate maximand,
relative fitness.
>  
> > > > > JE:-
> > > > > Your proposition is absurd. Averages
> > > > > hide all the selective action they do
> > > > > not elucidate them. You must DEFINE
> > > > > the maximand not just imply one _may_
> > > > > exist hidden away within some "average"
> > > > > measure.
>  
> > > > NAS:-
> > > > Uh, the population average is in the maximand, not vice
versa, John.
>  
> > > JE:-
> > > Uh, the population average is just a statistical
> > > rework of a biological _reality_ it is not a
> > > biological reality in its own right.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > Perhaps, but the action of natural selection is a fundamentally
> > statistical process.
> 
> JE:-
> The action of natural selection is NOT
> "fundamentally statistical process."
> Natural selection is the default comparison
> of all parental Darwinian absolute fitness
> within one population. This is NOT a statistical
> process. The absolute fitnesses are NOT
> themselves being retotalled or statistically reworked
> in any way they are simply compared by default.

That is not what I suggested, John. Change due to natural selection
can be expressed in terms of statistical measures, such are
regressions. This does not imply indeterminism or reworking of
anyone's fitness.
 
> > > JE:-
> > > Please supply a REAL biological maximand.
>  
> > Absolute fertile offspring number is a real biological maximand in
> > certain contexts.
> 
> JE:-
> Please provide the context where
> "absolute fertile offspring number"
> provides an incorrect maximand.

This was my aim when I provided the sex allocation example. Why don't
we have a closer look at it, hmm?

> >snip<
>  
> >snip<
>  
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > 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:-
> > > > > What is the maximand
> > > > > within Price's theorem?
>  
> > > > NAS:-
> > > > In simple terms, 'relative fitness'.
>  
> > > JE:-
> > > Exactly. You have been
> > > attempting to hide relative
> > > fitness as your only
> > > proposed maximand.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > One step at a time.
> 
> JE:-
> You have _incorrectly_
> identified the first step.
> Your first step is to
> identify your own but
> just implicit, maximand.

Not necessary. As outlined above, I do not need to have an alternative
in order to show that your maximand is insufficient.

> > > NAS:-
> > > Do you agree that any relative fitness
> > > is a fitness comparison, i.e. it is
> > > a bilateral term and not a unilateral
> > > term?
> 
> > NAS:-
> > If I understand you, then I agree.
> 
> JE:-
> "If I understand you"?
> What have I said here that
> is ambiguous?

I am having some difficulty given that you have forced me to commit to
a definition of fitness of my choosing (a definition which, it turns
out, makes discussions of absolute and relative fitness meaningless),
yet you then demand that I respond to questions phrased in terms of
your definition of fitness (i.e. about absolute and relative
fitnesses). Can you not see how ridiculous you are being, John?
 
> You have agreed that relative fitness
> is a minimally bilateral measure, i.e.
> it is just a COMPARISON of at least
> TWO OTHER FITNESSES.

I will go so far as to say that I believe fitness is usally expressed
as a fraction, with some value associated with the agent forming the
numerator, and a value associated with the population as a whole
forming the numerator. I would call neither the denominator nor the
numerator measures of fitness. I would call the fraction fitness.
 _____________________________________
> What are these _two_ other fitnesses
> that are only being compared? Are they,
> also, just relative fitnesses?
> ______________________________________

See above. 

> > > JE:-
> > > Previously you noted that "marginal
> > > fitness" was not an absolute or
> > > relative fitness. Have you changed
> > > your mind?
> 
> > NAS:-
> > Can you provide a quote and reference? I have on countless
> > occasions
> > provided statements to the contrary.
> 
> JE:-
> Below is the requested requote:
>


 
> If you cannot follow/remember your own
> train of thought how can sbe reader's
> believe that you can follow a contesting
> argument?

This was a rather pointless waste of time. I had already acknowledged
that I had misread the question, and provided a more appropriate
response. This had nothing to do with my ability to follow my own
train of thought. My only option is to see this little charade as a
desperate attempt to undermine my argument. It won't work. Other
readers (if there are any) can easily read between the lines. Why
don't you simply respond to the sex allocation problem I posted? I
think the answer to that is becoming increasingly obvious.
---
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 8/8/04 9:57:34 PM