"Guy Hoelzer"  wrote in message
news:ca5kl0$1pcj$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> in article ca4lgr$1fqh$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, Perplexed in Peoria at
> jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net wrote on 6/8/04 8:20 AM:
> > You are wrong about Hamilton's rule being frequency sensitive in its
> > applicability.  The rule applies equally well at all frequencies.
> > If rb > c, then it is advantageous to have the
"altruistic allele".
>
> This statement makes so many mean field approximations, I am not sure that
> it retains any meaningful relationship to reality.

Two questions:
1. What is a "mean field approximation"?
2. Where do they appear in my statement (or Hamilton's)?

> ... a more extensive analysis will show you
> that Hamilton's Rule fails as a quantitative predictor of allele frequency
> change, except when the allele is in a low frequency range (but not too
> low),

Hamilton's rule "rb>c" does not even attempt to be a
quantitative predictor
of allele frequency change.  I would be very curious to see how it could
be used as one in the low frequency range.

> simply because "r" becomes an increasingly inaccurate indicator of the
> probability that another individual shares the allele.

How does this matter?  Do you believe that the rate of allele frequency
change is somehow dependent on the probability that another individual
shares the allele?  You will have to explain how.
---
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 6/10/04 12:54:02 PM