"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:ce4ohd$1mop$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> "Perplexed in Peoria" 
> > > JE:-
> > > Please provide just a single example of
> > > a biological term that I am defining
> > > differently to everybody else.
>
> > JM:-
> > I don't need to provide an example.
>
> JE:-
> The logic speaks for itself:
> You made the accusation so
> you must provide at least
> one example, or retract it.
> Ok?
>
> > JM:-
> > I have provided an experiment.
>
> JE:-
> No, I have supplied an experiment but you
> have only supplied a modelling simulation,
> (as I have previously taken great pains to
> point out).
>
> > JM:-
> > If my hypothesis is correct, we will have several examples by
> > this time next week.  If not, then I will shut up about different
> > definitions.  I will pretend that you are speaking the same language
> > as me and respond under that pretense, as BOH and NAS do, with
> > equally humorous results.
>
> JE:-
> I am happy to follow this modelling
> simulation. IMHO the outcome is
> predictable.

Follow?  My impression was that you would participate -
i.e. answer the questions to the best of your ability.
I went to considerable effort to make the mathematical
requirements simple - only biological intuition is needed
to participate.  Simply answer the questions appearing in
the post "Experiment - Peshwari cat and Peshwari pig".

> > > JE:-
> > > With regards to Hamilton's rule:
> > > I define relative fitness exactly the same
> > > as everybody else.
>
> > JM:-
> > We shall see what the experiment shows.
>
> JE:-
> It is not an experiment it is a
> modelling simulation.

Thought experiment.  But, as regards my hypothesis
that you define terms differently than everyone else,
it is also an experiment.

> Relative fitness within Hamilton's
> rule is defined as _any_ comparison
> between rb and c. Do you agree or
> disagree?

Disagree.  And that supplies the example you were requesting.
I must admit that even I am surprised at how deep our
differences in terminology run.  You have been scathing in
your denunciations of neo-Darwinism's use of relative fitness,
yet you seem to not even understand what relative fitness means,
to a neo-Darwinist.  But perhaps you DO understand relative
fitness, and are merely confused about rb and c.  That would
be my guess.  I look forward to seeing how you answer the
relative fitness question in the experiment.

My definition of relative fitness, as well as that of BOH and
NAS, will be revealed next week when I publish the responses
to the experiment.  And we can then compare these with the
answer that you provide and then discuss the differences.

[snip]
> JE:-
> Altruism within Hamilton's rule is
> defined as any positive c. Do you
> agree or disagree?

Disagree.  Altruism is positive c and positive b.
Spite is positive c and negative b.  So, positive
c could be either altruism or spite.  It depends
on the sign of b.
[snip]

> > > JE:-
> > > 2) I insist that the absolute fitness of the
> > > actor has to be included within the rule for
> > > it to make any biological sense.
>
> > JM:-
> > I think I understand what you mean here.  I disagree
> > that it has to be included for the rule to make sense.
> > I think you expect too much from the rule.  And, as
> > I have stated before, I think that your proposed fix
> > for this problem - your ("rb>K-c") - is absurd both
> > mathematically and biologically.  But you will have the
> > chance to show me wrong in the experiment.
>
> JE:-
> Here is the rule with the absolute
> fitness of the actor _explicitly_
> included within it:
>
> rb>K
>
> Only this ONE case proves altruism via
> the rule re: the _absolute_ fitness of
> the actor. Do you agree or disagree?

John, I have no idea what the symbols in your rule represent.
So how CAN I agree or disagree?  In the "experiment", I have
given you the opportunity to illustrate how "rb>K" or
"rb>K-c"
can be applied to biology.  Perhaps, after you have given
that illustration, I can respond.

> > [snip]
> > > JE:-
> > > The agreement I thought we had was that Hamilton
> > > et al did not include any absolute fitness measure
> > > within the rule. [snip]
>
> > JM:-
> > John, please reread what I said.  There was no mention
> > of absolute fitness measures.
>
> JE:-
> Exactly. You admit non exist
> by simple default of your failure
> to define any.

[Sigh]
I have defined two different measures of absolute fitness
in my experiment, and invited discussion as to their
advantages and disadvantages.  One of those two measures
is yours, and it "shows its stuff" to advantage in this
experiment.  The other measure of absolute fitness is the
standard neo-Darwinian one.  I think I prefer it to your
measure, for most purposes.  But we can discuss that, in
the context of the "experiment".

> > > JE:-
> > > 1) Do you agree or disagree that no abolute
> > > fitness measure exists within the rule?
>
> > JM:-
> > A surprisingly subtle and interesting question, which
> > will be answered in my response to the "experiment".
>
> JE:-
> My question was about as subtle as
> a sledge hammer smashing a brick ;-)
>
> I insist you answer this question.

And I will, in about 5 days.  My answer already appears in
an email to Josh.  It will be published after I have received
answers from BOH, NAS, and yourself (and anyone else who
wishes to participate).

I also insist that you answer the questions in the "experiment",
John.  You can't continually demand "agree or disagree?" and
then refuse to answer questions yourself.  Someone might start
using the "E" word against you, and I don't mean "Enron".
---
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 7/28/04 6:06:56 AM