"Perplexed in Peoria" 

> > > JE:=
> > > Within Hamilton's rule the two fitnesses
> > > being compared are inclusive fitness
> > > (rb) and Darwinian fitness implied as
> > > as just the cost (c).

> > NAS:-
> > This is wrong. Conventionally, inclusive fitness is r b - c, not r b.

> JM:-
> This is also wrong.  At least as Hamilton defined inclusive fitness in
> 1964.  He defined it as something like (K + rb - c), where K would be
> the fitness that an organism would have if all social interactions were
> excluded (and the costs of those interactions).
> Inclusive fitness as you have defined it and inclusive fitness as
> Hamilton defined it maximize together only if there are no pleiotropic
> effects that modify both K and (rb-c).

JE:-
Jim, this form is only for 
reference purposes. NAS is 
attempting to  debate what 
I wrote in this form rather 
than debate these concepts 
in another thread
_after_ NAS had finished 
completing it. Until NAS
completes the form debating
these issues is just a waste
of time. Please complete
this form yourself so your
view can be understood 
and debate, productive.

I will complete your simulation
questions after and not before,
you have completed this form.

Regards,

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 8/3/04 12:27:46 PM