Jim Menegay wrote:-

> > JE:-
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > So that I am not misunderstood: all positive cases of c,
> > within the rule are invalid. This is because
> > all positive values of c remain  _ambiguous_ re: the
> > measuring OFA and OFM, as Dr O'Hara has reluctantly agreed.
> > It is this point of logical ambiguity that nobody wishes to
> > discuss, not even Dr O'Hara who agrees that it does exist.
> > ____________________________________________________________

> JM:-
> So that you are not misunderstood, please indicate when
> Dr. O'Hara made this "reluctant" admission of ambiguity.
> Was it in his "as far as the rule is concerned, none"
> response?  If so, do you believe that this is a fair
> and correct interpretation of his response, and that Dr.
> O'Hara would agree that it is fair and correct?

JE:-
Yes, the above constituted a "fair and correct 
interpretation of his response" for the following 
reason:

Here is the quote again:
--------------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 --------------------


Since cases of +c are defined 
as fitness altruistic and cases of  
-c are defined as fitness mutualistic
to the actor within Hamilton's rule, then Dr 
O'Hara's agreement means that a reduced altruistic
act (a reduced positive c) cannot be differentiated 
from a mutualistic act (a negative c) within the 
rule. Thus any measure of OFA using the rule 
remains _ambiguous_. The net result of this 
ambiguity  is that Hamilton's rule _cannot_ 
measure when OFA could evolve. Thus the rule 
was misused when it was used to support 
OFA when classical group selection failed to 
be able to do so.

I have no ideas if "Dr O'Hara would agree 
that it is fair and correct" because so
far, Dr O'Hara (BOH) has failed to elaborate
on any logical consequence of his unambiguous
comment.


Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
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 7/19/04 5:06:41 PM