"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:ce17lp$f3t$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> JE:-
> Please provide just a single example of
> a biological term that I am defining
> differently to everybody else.

I don't need to provide an example.  I have provided an experiment.
If my hypothesis is correct, we will have several examples by
this time next week.  If not, then I will shut up about different
definitions.  I will pretend that you are speaking the same language
as me and respond under that pretense, as BOH and NAS do, with
equally humorous results.

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

We shall see what the experiment shows.

> 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.

I can't even parse this.

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

I think I understand what you mean here.  I disagree
that it has to be included for the rule to make sense.
I think you expect too much from the rule.  And, as
I have stated before, I think that your proposed fix
for this problem - your ("rb>K-c") - is absurd both
mathematically and biologically.  But you will have the
chance to show me wrong in the experiment.

> 3) I propose that the above remain logically
> valid and testable against nature.
> > [snip]
[snip]

> The agreement I thought we had was that Hamilton
> et al did not include any absolute fitness measure
> within the rule. [snip]

John, please reread what I said.  There was no mention
of absolute fitness measures.

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

A surprisingly subtle and interesting question, which
will be answered in my response to the "experiment".

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

I don't even begin to understand either the statement
or the logic.  So, I disagree, I guess.
---
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 4:00:45 PM