"Anon."  wrote:-
Subject: Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?


> >>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.  

JE:-
Yes, the rule "can still be used to 
decide whether a behaviour will invade 
a population" on strictly a RELATIVE basis.

______________________________________________
Why did you leave out "on strictly a RELATIVE
basis"? 
______________________________________________


Your quoted  22/01/2004 answer proved my point: 
a  relative fitness is NOT SUFFICIENT to make any 
MEANINGFUL BIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE. 

All biological interpretation remains
entirely dependent on the sign of c where this
sign cannot measure "the difference between
a reduced positive c and a negative c". In
BIOLOGICAL TERMS the sign of c cannot measure
the difference between just a smaller donation
and an investment that turns a profit for
the actor. This being TRUE,
ANY case interpreted as being altruism
when spite is deleted (any positive c)
could be just sham altruism (a negative c),
we can never know! The rule entirely fails
to be able to do what it is most commonly
used to do: replace classical group selection
as supporting organism fitness altruism (OFA) 
within nature. 

_____________________________________________
Does Dr O'Hara now agree that the rule was
misused to support OFA in nature?
_____________________________________________


So that this debate minimises misunderstandings
and misinterpretations please fill in the form:

	"A DECLARATION OF MEANING "

and post it to sbe.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher
---
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 8/4/04 9:34:46 PM