joe{at}removethispart.gs.washington.edu (Joe Felsenstein) wrote in message
news:...
> In article ,
> Jim McGinn  wrote:
> >joe{at}removethispart.gs.washington.edu wrote 
> >> ... but no actual explanation of how is provided.
> >
> >So you don't deny that Hamilton's Rule is inconsistent 
> >with reality as we know it.  Right?
> 
> If I knew why it was being asserted that it was inconsistent,
> I could confirm or deny.  In the absence of an explanation, I deny.
> 
> >> [McGinn]
> >> >Okay, I'll keep it brief:
> >> >Hamilton's refuted.  Get used to it.
> >> 
> >> And I'll keep it brief:  McGinn won't explain his argument. 
Get used to it.
> >
> >Not true.  I'd be more than happy to explain my 
> >argument.  Honestly.  Please delineate as briefly 
> >and specifically as possible what part or aspect 
> >of my "argument," you would like me to explicate.
> 
> Fine, explain.  A couple of simple paragraphs should be good as a start.
> Until I know your argument, I can't pick a part of it, so you can just
> start at the beginning, and we'll go step by step.

I've already presented my argument.  (As I'm sure 
you realize.)

> 
> But if it is just going to consist of a rejection of all models, one
> which would equally well serve to persuade us that the Hardy-Weinberg
> proportions are "inconsistent with reality", then we should instead
> argue about whether Hardy and Weinberg have been refuted.  That will be
> easier for people to assess.

Okay, you tell me why you think it's valid and I'll 
tell you why you're wrong.

Jim
---
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 6/18/04 6:44:21 AM