John W Edser wrote:
> PostA4
> 
> 
>>>>BOH:-
>>>>We also seem to disagree on whether anyone has tried to use
Hamilton's
>>>>rule to separate OFM from OFA.  You are claiming that it
has, but have
>>>>still not provided any evidence for this.  So, I'm asking you again -
>>>>please provide the evidence.  Cite papers!  Books!
>>>
> 
>>>>JE:-
>>>>I can't imagine where you got that from!
>>>>I am NOT claiming that is HAS been separated
>>>>I am claiming that OFM and OFA cannot be separated
>>>>within Hamilton's rule unless K, the absolute
>>>>donor fitness which is numerically equivalent to
>>>>cmax, is appended to the rule thus:
>>>
> 
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>But you are also claiming that Hamilton's rule HAS BEEN USED to make
>>>this separation (by claiming that it has been mis-used).  Quite simply,
>>>I want to see evidence for this.  So far none has been forthcoming.
>>
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>The evidence is simply, the rule _was_ used to
>>>support OFA after classical group selection
>>>failed to do so. You agreed that this was the
>>>case. Unless the rule HAD BEEN USED to separate
>>>OFM from OFA such a claim would have been logically
>>>impossible.
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>Why?
> 
> 
> JE:-
> How can a rule that purports to draw a line in the
> sand between OFA and OFM  only support OFA
> when that line has been proven to only be arbitrary?
> 
Because it doesn't purport to draw a line in the sand.  I keep on asking 
for evidence from you that it has been used to do this, and so far you 
have failed to provide any.



>>>>>______________________________________
>>>>>Do you agree that you cannot use OFM to support
>>>>>OFA?
>>>>>_________________________________________
>>>>
> 
>>>>BOH:-
>>>>Of course - they are mutually exclusive (by definition). 
This should be
>>>>obvious.
>>>
> 
>>>>JE:-
>>>>Then you have no option but to agree that
>>>>Hamilton's rule was utterly misused to
>>>>support OFA within nature after group
>>>>selection failed to do so
>>>>because:
>>>>
>>>>  ..AT ALL TIMES, EITHER OFA OR OFM
>>>>  ARE OPERATING TO SUPPORT OFA..
>>>
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>I'm sorry, I don't have a clue what you mean when you write that OFM is
>>>operating to support OFA.
>>
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>You agreed:
>>>
>>>1) The sign of c remains arbitrary for all
>>>cases of Hamilton's rule.
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>This might be misleading - I have argued that the sign of c is arbitrary
>>  within Hamilton's rule, because the rule works equally well with both.
>>  However, the "for all cases" might be taken to mean that it is
>>arbitrary every time that Hamilton's rule is applied, in which case it
>>is not arbitrary (because there is a measurable value).
> 
> 
> JE:-
> Please make up your mind. EITHER the sign of c is arbitrary
> or it isn't. 

It would help if you read what I wrote.  I was tryinfg to clarify things 
in case there ws any confusion, and you happily ignored the clarification.

And PLEASE, provide evidence that Hamilton's rule has been used to 
separate OFM from OFA.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 22 779
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org
---
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 4/8/04 3:22:40 PM