"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> > 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.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > "simplified" implies "different", ..
> 
> JE:-
> No, "simplified" should not imply "different"
> for just a _model of a theory but it must for
> any contesting theory. 

Empty assertion.

> My Example is Hamilton's rule
> which can be proven to be just a over simplification 
> of Darwinism which it invalidly seeks to compete
> against.

Hamilton's rule is entirely general. You only think it is a limited
simplification because you do not understand what it is.

> In this model the total Darwinian 
> fitness of the actor has been deleted.
> If you delete the most important absolute assumption 
> within Darwinian theory you are required to substitute 
> another, i.e. some other total fitness measure. 

Another assertion. Have you ever demonstrated that anyone has to do
anything of the sort?

>This 
> Hamilton failed to do. When pushed, Hamilton et al 
> just supposes multi levels to attempt to fill the 
> void, i.e. they attempt to  have it "all ways" 
> making the theory non testable. 
> 
> Until Hamilton et al come up with a substitute total 
> fitness for the actor that is different to Darwinian
> total fitness, they are only misusing an oversimplified
> model. Models are not designed to compete against the
> theory they were simplified from, they are only designed
> to help test that theory via hypothetical situations
> where known biological variables are either eliminated
> to zero or expanded to infinity, e.g. assuming just 
> random mating or an infinite population. Models only 
> allow _unreal_, i.e. artificial situations which are 
> _simple_ to monitor. They remain an essential tool but
> are utterly misused if they attempt to compete against 
> the theory they were simplified/over simplified, from.
> 

You throw the term 'model' around and are annoyed when people fail to
understand precisely what you are talking about. 'Model' does not have
a single standard definition in science.
 
> > NAS:-
> > and I do not see any problem in
> > letting different theories / models compete.
> 
> JE:-
> Do you discriminate between 
> a model and a theory?
> 

See above.

> > > JE:-
> > > 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.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > Price's Theorem.
> 
> JE:-
> Provide a point of refutation 
> for Price's Theorem 

Price's Theorem is a mathematical truism.

> and prove
> that the theorem is different
> to Darwinian theory, i.e. prove
> it is not just a misused model 
> of Darwinism.
>

Price's Theorem describes evolutionary change in completely general
terms. Perhaps it has been misused, just as Hamilton's rule has been
misused. This does not make it *wrong*, or a false statement.

> > > > > > > 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.
>  
> > NAS;-
> > I think your point would be clearer if you spoke in terms of biology,
> > not physics.
> 
> JE:-
> Physics is simpler than biology so 
> exactly the same epistemological point is 
> much more _clearly_ made using it. As Long 
> as the point is clearly made that is all 
> that matters. 

Well, you certainly did not achieve that.

> The main point is you 
> have tacitly agreed. Please make your 
> agreement/disagreement, explicit.
>

I disagree. 
 
> Unless the total fitness of the
> actor is included within Hamilton's
> inequality : rb>c, then _everything_
> in it is just another variable. This being
> the case, not a single point of reference
> exists for his rule, i.e. logically it 
> is the same as E=Mc^2 where c is just
> another variable providing correct
> mathematics but nonsense physics.
> Because the total fitness for the actor
> is missing from Hamilton's rule no difference 
> _can_ exist between a reduced positive c and a 
> negative c. 

I am not sure what you mean by c in this instance. 

> Such an absurdity happens
> every time you attempt to form an inequality
> or an equation within the sciences that
> does not explicitly refer to a general term
> that represents a stated maximum/minimum/constant,
> i.e. an _objective_ absolute _assumption_.

Funny then that when we go out into nature and look at what the
creatures are doing it seems that we managed to make pretty good
predictions despite all these incomprehensible philosophical failures
which you insist neodarwinism is guilty of. Maybe the beasts are in on
the neodarwinist conspiracy too . . .
 
> > > > > 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?
> 
> 
> > NAS;-
> > Because w[x], w[x]/E[w], and dw/dx are all distinct, right?
> 
> JE:-
> Note: Something can only be
> a maximum/minimum/constant OR
> just a variable, i.e. IT CANNOT 
> BE BOTH within the SAME theory.
> Do you agree or disagree?

x is a variable, w a function. 

> Also: this is not a mathematics list.
> Please translate the mathematics 
> above into simple rational statements 
> that make sense within a science
> of biology.
> 

This is rich coming so soon after your physics lecture above.
 
> It appears to me that both
> the examples above are just 
> over simplified models. What
> theory were they simplified 
> from?

What examples?
---
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