"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:ccknad$mqh$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> > JM:-
> > John,
> > I'm snipping the stuff about absolute vs relative fitness,
> > not because it is unimportant, but because it seems best to
> > me to tackle only one issue at a time.  I think that you
> > still don't quite appreciate the altruistic vs mutualistic
> > distinction.
>
> JE:-
> Jim, if only you would more carefully examine the
> reposted exchange I included between BOH and
> myself this could be resolved. If Hamilton's
> rule cannot discriminate between a reduced +c
> and -c as Dr O'Hara agreed that it couldn't be, then
> the rule is _proven_ to be _biologically meaningless_.

Ok, since you don't want to do it my way, we will have to
do it your way.  You say that "the rule is proven to
be biologically meaningless".  Ok, show me the proof.
One step at a time.

First step: Explain what you mean by "a reduced +c and -c".
Is this an abbreviation for "a reduced positive c and a
negative c"?  If so, you need to know that your abbreviation
is extremely non-standard and creates confusion in everyone
that sees it.

Second step:  Assuming I guessed your first abbreviation
correctly, I still don't know what the question means.
Are you comparing the amount by which c has been reduced
to the value of c (or maybe -c)?  Does the word "reduced"
in the question have any purpose other than to confuse me?

Suggestion: rephrase your question to use the word cost
rather than the symbol "c".  Maybe it will make sense to
me then.

If you think it will help, you can explain to me the
difference between a model and a theory and tell me
whether Hamilton has produced a (bad) model or a (bad)
theory.
---
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 7/9/04 6:09:07 AM