> 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. 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. 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. 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.


> NAS:-
> and I do not see any problem in
> letting different theories / models compete.

JE:-
Do you discriminate between 
a model and a theory?

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


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

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. 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_.


> > > > 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?

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


It appears to me that both
the examples above are just 
over simplified models. What
theory were they simplified 
from?

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au



Regards,
---
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 7/27/04 6:06:44 AM