"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> Name And Address Supplied wrote:-

cont. . .

> > > > > JE:-
> > > > > Logically, it remains untrue that "for a
> > > > > broad class of situations, relative fitness suffices".
> > > > > Unless a defined 3rd fixed point of reference exists,
> > > > > just measuring a relative difference means nothing.
>  
> > > > NAS:-
> > > > The question should provide the appropriate reference point.
> > >
> > > JE:-
> > > Yes it should but it doesn't, does it.
> > > Please provide an example.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > The reference is provided by the question. Contrast "how does an
> > allele's frequency change in a population" with "how
does a species
> > abundance change in a community". The key references are
"population"
> > and "community" respectively. An allele might increase
even though it
> > causes an absolute decline in population size - but if we are
> > answering the first of the two questions, we do not care about the
> > decline of the population size, since the allele's frequency is
> > measured within the population.
> 
> JE:-
> You have failed to distinguish between just a simplified
> model and the theory it was simplified from. This provides
> a real danger that you may allow just an over simplified
> model to invalidly  compete and win against the theory
> from which is was simplified/over simplified which I am
> sure you would agree would be an absurdity.
> 

"simplified" implies "different", and I do not see any problem in
letting different theories / models compete.

> How an allele's frequency changes in a population
> and how a species abundance changes in a community
> can only be explained using a testable theory. Please
> provide or just acknowledge, such a theory.

Price's Theorem.

> 
> > > > > JE:-
> > > > > This is what Einstein taught the world. This 3rd
> > > > > defined fixed point provides the frame of reference.
> > > > > In evolutionary theory this is a missing objective absolute
> > > > > fitness that _does_ exist within Darwinism but remains
> > > > > entirely _absent_ from Neo Darwinism. Tragically,
> > > > > in their attempt to defend the indefensible Neo
> > > > > Darwinians junked Popper and embraced post modernism
> > > > > which can be summed up by their jingle:
> > > > > "everything is relative". Everything is
the sciences
> > > > > is not relative! Science is based on absolute assumptions
> > > > > that are testable. For evolutionary theory, the only
> > > > > absolute assumption that matters is ANY assumption
> > > > > of absolute fitness that can be tested (can be
> > > > > uniquely verified or refuted). The term "unique"
> > > > > strictly applies to any other idea on the table
> > > > > and not just, any other idea.
>  
> > > >  NAS:-
> > > > I do not follow.
>  
> > > JE:-
> > > I do not have the time to
> > > keep rewriting what I am
> > > arguing. The
> > > above was non ambiguous
> > > non self contradictory
> > > and self explanatory.
> > > Please re read it and
> > > provide a comment.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > Okay. It is a mass of assertions. Why can we not test the theory of
> > relative fitnesses?
> 
> JE:-
> Unless you provide an absolute fitness
> assumption you have no reference point
> to measure __anything_ against. As an
> obvious example, in Special Relativity,
> if c was not a testable maximum, i.e.
> was just another variable within E=Mc^2
> then these many possible values of E
> are just, incorrect i.e. here the equation
> would be mathematically correct put only
> provide _nonsense_ for the science of
> physics.
> 

I think your point would be clearer if you spoke in terms of biology,
not physics.

> > > snip<
> > > Requote:
> > > --------------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 --------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > _____________________________________________
> > > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > > Okay, here is my comment:
> > > > > > If c is supposed to represent what
> > > > > > I think it means, i.e. the cost in
> > > > > > Hamilton's rule, then it is neither
> > > > > > an absolute measure of fitness nor
> > > > > > a relative measure of fitness, but
> > > > > > is rather a marginal fitness cost.
>  
> > > > > JE:-
> > > > > Exactly WHAT is "a marginal fitness cost"
> > > > > and how can it differ to BOTH a relative
> > > > > AND absolute fitness cost?
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > > Please provide answer the CRITICAL unanswered
> > > question in  the box above.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > A marginal fitness cost is a partial regression of fitness against
> > own's own strategy.
> 
> JE:-
> You have (again) failed to fully
> answer this question. How can this
> marginal fitness cost differ to
> BOTH a  relative AND absolute
> fitness cost?
> 

Because w[x], w[x]/E[w], and dw/dx are all distinct, right?
---
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