"Anon."  wrote:

> >>>JE:-
> >>>What I am arguing here is that Hamilton's logic can only work
> >>>when the cost c remains _negative_ (in strictly Darwinian 
> >>>fitness terms). This means that at all times, organism fitness 
> >>>mutualism (OFM) and not organism fitness altruism (OFA) is
> >>>operating in ALL valid cases of Hamilton's rule, no exceptions. 
> >>>____________________________________________________________
> >>>So that I am not misunderstood: all positive cases of c,
> >>>within the rule are invalid. This is because
> >>>all positive values of c remain  _ambiguous_ re: the 
> >>>measuring OFA and OFM, as Dr O'Hara has reluctantly agreed.
> >>>It is this point of logical ambiguity that nobody wishes to 
> >>>discuss, not even Dr O'Hara who agrees that it does exist.
> >>>____________________________________________________________
> >>

> >> BOH:- 
> >> John, please don't put words into my mouth.  

JE:-
I do not do anything of the sort. 

> >> BOH:-
> >> There is (in my mind at 
> >> least) no ambiguity - a positive c is a positive c so that the 
> >> behaviour 
> >> under study is altruistic (this follows directly from the technical 
> >> definition of altriusm).  Whether this behviour will invade a 
> >> population 
> >> is determined by Hamilton's rule.


> > JE:-
> > If you wish to retract your reply below, 
> > then please do so, _explicity_:

> BOH:- 
> No, I do not.  Please do not extrapolate from what I write and then 
> claim that I agree with the extrapolation you make.

>snip<

JE:-
If any "extrapolation" is logically 
deductive from what you have said 
then: 

1) It remains absolutely valid.

2) It valdily helps to test what you have said.

3) You reamin responsible for the extrapolation
   and not the person who only pointed it out.

--------------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 --------------------

Please provide the missing logic that 
proves it was invalid for me to just 
deductively conclude that: IF no difference 
exists within Hamilton's rule "between a 
reduced  positive c and a negative c" THEN 
the rule cannot measure the critical difference 
between  mutualism and altruism for any case 
of a positive c?

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 7/22/04 6:08:47 AM