"Perplexed in Peoria" 

> > 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?

> NAS:-
> 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. 

> > 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.

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


> > However:
> > 1) I suggest that this was never sufficient
> > to suggest when an altruistic gene has spread
> > no matter if you define altruism as just
> > _any_ positive cost c within the rule because
> > this definition simply refutes itself via its
> > invalidity.

> JM:-
> I can't even parse this.

JE:-
Take it one step at a time.
Step one:
Altruism within Hamilton's rule is 
defined as any positive c. Do you
agree or disagree?

> > 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?

If you agree:
What is the net result for the actor 
re: its own fecundity?

If you disagree:
Please provide your version of the rule
with the total fitness of the actor
_explicitly_ included within it.

> > JM:-
> > 3) I propose that the above remain logically
> > valid and testable against nature.
> > > [snip]
> [snip]
> > 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.

> > 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.

> > JE:-
> > 2) Do you agree or disagree with the deduction
> > that has been made?

> JM:-
> I don't even begin to understand either the statement
> or the logic.  So, I disagree, I guess.

JE:
I cannot believe what you
are claiming here: you do not
know what a simple deduction 
is.

If you claim that 4+4 = 8
then you must also claim
that 5+7 = 12, right?
You cannot validly claim that 
4+4 = 8 but 5+7 does not = 12.
Either both are correct or 
neither are. Ok?
This is because both are 
only simple deductions from
exactly same inductive set of
mathematical definitions
that allowed both additions
where just one invalid deduction
refutes ALL these definitions.

Any rule that does not refer
either directly or indirectly
to a minimal/maximal/constant
value must behave in the 
same way: contradict itself.
Hamilton's rule is NOT an exception.
This is why Dr O'Hara had no other 
choice but to reluctantly admit that
no difference between "a reduced positive 
c and a negative c" exists anywhere within 
Hamilton's rule. Nobody here understands
that this _proves_ the rule is logically 
_invalid_ so the rule stands refuted
within any _science_. ANY rule that cannot  
measure the difference between such 
a _basic_ difference can only make 
self contradictory measurements. 
This is the case re: Hamilton's rule
where a cost c that makes an absolute
gain cannot be differentiated from
a cost c that makes an absolute loss!
However, even such an absurd rule can 
remain _mathematically_ valid.

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 7/27/04 6:06:44 AM