"Name And Address Supplied"
 wrote in message
news:cee997$1t5u$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> "Perplexed in Peoria"  wrote
in message news:...
> > "Name And Address Supplied"
 wrote in message
news:ce36t2$13nb$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> > > "John Edser"  wrote in
message news:...
> > > > 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?
> >
> > Hmmm.  I might have written:
> > "Because (w[x']-w[x]), ((w[x']-w[x])/E[w]), and dw/dx are
all distinct".
>
> Sorry, was being sloppy and referring to fitness rather than any
> particular component of fitness (costs/benefits).
>
> The sign of dw/dx determines the direction of change in E[x] under the
> action of natural selection. It applies to all natural selection.

Hmmm.  Careful here!  Earlier, you apparently equated Hamilton's c to
dw/dx.  So are you now agreeing with John that Hamilton's rule is counter
to natural selection?  Or are you saying, perhaps, that rb can be
equated to dw/dx for the w at the group level?  That is, I think, the
Price approach.

Since I accept your claim that the sign of dw/dx determines the direction
of change of E[x] under natural selection, and I want to claim that
Hamilton's rule works at the organism level, I have to deny that dw/dx
should be equated to c.  Instead, I have to claim that c is (in some
sense) a partial derivative, rather than a total derivative.  But since
this newsgroup doesn't support greek letters, I won't put that into symbols.

It is somewhat amusing that John claims to be able to perform "SIMPLE
DEDUCTION"s regarding this material.
---
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 8/1/04 5:56:34 AM