"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> Name And Address Supplied wrote:-
> 
> > > JE:-
> > > The BIG issue remains: Hamilton's rule cannot
> > > discriminate between just a _phoney_ altruistic gene:
> > > a gene that provides a relative loss, but also an
> > > absolute _gain_ for the actor, and a _real_ altruistic 
> > > gene: a gene that provides an absolute loss for the
> > > actor. Hamilton's measure is no better than
> > > the fraudulent accounting that bankrupted Enron
> > > where debits became credits. Hamilton cannot tell
> > > a fitness debit (an absolute loss) from a fitness credit 
> > > (an absolute gain)! NAS has yet to respond to any of 
> > > these BASIC charges.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > Because you are unintelligible. Give me a worked example, without
> > short cuts, and it might be a little clearer to us as to what you are
> > up to.
> 
> Here is the example you requested. It
> is unambiguous and totally "intelligible"
> but I suspect you will never acknowledge 
> it as such:
> --------------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 --------------------
> 
> Do you agree or disagree with Dr O'Hara's
> answer in the quote (above)? 
> 

I'm not sure I even know what *you* mean by c. If we are talking about
the direct marginal cost in Hamilton's rule, then there is a
difference: positive c is a cost, negative c is a benefit. All is
still relative - strategy is relative to the population mean, fitness
is relative to the population mean. The fact that these measures are
relative does not mean that we cannot discriminate a cost from a
benefit. However, as I say, I am not convinced that we are talking
about the same 'c's here. I get the impression that you interpret the
statement which is Hamilton's rule differently from the conventional
view. So, I emphasize that this is a conditional answer to your
question, and not one that I want to see taken out of context.

But, anyway, you missed my point. I was asking for a worked example, a
rendering of a specific biological phenomenon, where you are able to
demonstrate that Hamilton's rule, as it is understood by experts in
social evolution theory, fails to 'work'.

> 
> > > JE:-
> > > It appears to me that because "Name and Address
> > > Supplied" does not supply either his/her name or his/her
> > > address (!) he/she is willing to involve himself/herself
> > > in a public discussion of this issue.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > I do publicly involve myself in such discussion, with my name and
> > address(es) freely available, and I do this in the most appropriate
> > arena - the peer reviewed primary literature.
> 
> JE:-
> So, sbe is not an "appropriate arena" for
> NAS to identify him/her self when discussing
> simple, basic issues re: evolutionary theory.

That doesn't follow from my statement.

> Why is NAS afraid to _publicly_ identify
> his/her view of just, evolutionary theory 
> _basics_? 

As I said, I do make my name and address(es) freely available in the
peer reviewed primary literature.
---
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 12:20:01 PM