> > JE:-
> > Note 1:
> > All acts in Hamilton's rule are
> > bilateral acts, i.e. at all times
> > a selective force exists on _both_
> > the recipient/recipients and the
> > donor, no exceptions. Any argument
> > that only a unilateral measure of
> > fitness is required to be measured
> > to allow the evolution of any behaviour
> > within Hamilton's rule remains incorrect.
> > 
> > Note 2:
> > Because the recipient/recipients receive 
> > something (b is positive) then the act has 
> > to be a gain for them. Thus no selective 
> > pressure exists on the recipient/
> > recipients to act against any positive b 
> > whereas when b becomes negative it does
> > exist. This proves bilateral selective
> > pressures exist when b is positive.
> > 
> > The Question A:
> > When b remains positive (spite is
> > ignored) what is the difference between
> > a _reduced_ positive c and a negative c?
> > 
> > Biological translation of question A:
> > What is the difference between just a
> > _reduced_ donation and an investment
> > as measured by Hamilton's rule?
> > 
> > Dr O'Hara's unambiguous answer: 
> > "As far as the  rule is concerned, 
> > none."


> BOH 
> I would just like to admit that this was ambiguous, which is why I have 
> tried to clarify it.
> You have also changed the question, to one which is different to the one 
> I was answering (or at least thought I was answering), and my 
> clarifications should clear this all up.

JE:-
Dr O'Hara now wishes to "clarify" his
response now that he has more fully realised
the deductive implications of his answer.
In simple terms, Dr O'Hara is attempting
to extricate himself from taking any
responsibility for the answer he provided.
He is also attempting to blame myself and 
not himself for these actions. 
__________________________________________
Question A remains exactly the same
as the original question I asked and
Dr O'Hara's response remains totally 
unambiguous. 

__________________________________________

Here is the quote again:
--------------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 --------------------



> BOH:- 
> I would ask that you help us all by including my clarifications of my 
> position should you wish to post the question and answer in future.

JE:-
No "clarification" exists!
Do you wish to change your mind?

If so:
Please explain how you can measure
within Hamilton's rule the difference 
between a reduced positive c and a 
negative c. Please define what "a 
reduced positive c" and "a negative
c" mean within the science of biology.

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 8/10/04 6:26:52 AM