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.

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.

-- 
Joe Felsenstein         joe{at}removethispart.gs.washington.edu
 Department of Genome Sciences and Department of Biology,
 University of Washington, Box 357730, Seattle, WA 98195-7730 USA
---
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 6/17/04 6:26:02 AM