> > JE:-
> > I am NOT "defining terms differently than everyone else"
> > I am including terms that nobody else _wishes_ to include.

> JM:-
> IMO, you are doing both.  And, also IMO, you might have more
> people listening sympathetically re "including terms" if you
> didn't so often confuse people with your "defining terms".

JE:-
Please provide just a single example of
a biological term that I am defining 
differently to everybody else. 

With regards to Hamilton's rule:
I define relative fitness exactly the same 
as everybody else. However:

1) I suggest that this was never sufficient
to suggest when an altruistic gene has spread
no matter if you define altruism as just
_any_ positive cost c within the rule because
this definition simply refutes itself via its
invalidity.

2) I insist that the absolute fitness of the
actor has to be included within the rule for
it to make any biological sense.

3) I propose that the above remain logically
valid and testable against nature.



> [snip]
> > JE:-
> > This is _not_ about what you or I believe is, or
> > is not, the case (how many more time do I have
> > to repeat this?).

> JM:-
> John, when you write "As you (JM) have EXPLICITLY agreed ...",
> then it DOES become about what I believe. 

JE:-
Firstly, science is not just about what you
may or may not, believe. Secondly, we are NOT 
discussing what I think Hamilton et al should have 
said, we are only discussing what they said. Thus
the "EXPLICIT" agreement I suggested we had was
about what HAMILTON et al had said and not about 
what I argue they should have said. OK? 

The agreement I thought we had was that Hamilton 
et al did not include any absolute fitness measure 
within the rule. Thus it follows by simple deduction 
that because of this basic fact a reduced positive 
c cannot be differentiated from a negative c. 
Thus by a simple, valid, deductive inference you 
had  EXPLICITLY agreed that altruism cannot be 
differentiated from mutualism as measured by 
the rule. 

So that no more confusion exists
regarding this pivotal point, please 
make your position clear:

1) Do you agree or disagree that no abolute
fitness measure exists within the rule?

2) Do you agree or disagree with the deduction
that has been made?


>snip<

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 7/26/04 11:21:11 AM