jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net (Jim Menegay) wrote 

> > jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net (Jim Menegay) wrote 
> > > Notice that if r is computed by IBD, then if the frequency of the 
> > > gene in the population is 10% and the frequency in me is 100%, then
> > > the frequency in my full sibs is 55%.  On the other hand, if the
> > > frequency in the population is 90%, and my frequency is again 100%,
> > > then the frequency in my sibs is 95%.
> > 
> > On average, yes.  But what's your point.  This is simple 
> > statistics.
> > 
> >   Regardless of the frequency of
> > > the gene in the population, the Wright-Hamilton definition of r
> > > provides an interpolation factor placing my relative between me and
> > > the population.
> > 
> > Yeah, so?
> 
> The point is that Hamilton's theory says that my tendency to be 
> altruistic toward my brother is the same whether I should expect
> him to share the gene at the 55% level or the 95% level.

I must be completely missing your point.  I don't see 
how Hamilton's theory says specifically this.  More 
troubling is the fact that your premise--from what I 
can tell--does not appear to be confirmed by reality.

> This is
> an interesting, and somewhat surprising prediction.

It is?  Why?  (I'm less concerned with whether or not 
it is surprising than I am with whether or not it is 
accurate.)

> 
> Elsewhere on this thread, McGinn wrote:
> 
> > When a truly rational understanding of 
> > relatedness is adopted it becomes plainly apparent 
> > that Hamilton's rule (and the other neo-darwinistic 
> > variations thereof) has to do with overcoming a 
> > nonexistent problem.  
> 
> Presumably, this "rational understanding of relatedness" is
> different from Hamilton's (originally Wright's).

Of course.

> Is this
> "rational understanding" written down anywhere, so that it
> can be subjected to critical scrutiny and experimental test?

What's amazing about evolutionary biology is that it 
is so ensconced in pseudo-scientific mysticism that it 
often becomes necessary to explain the obvious.  

The root of the word rational is ratio, which means to 
measure.  Suppose somebody were to dump a pile of rocks 
on your desk of different sizes, shapes, composition and 
ask you to describe their relatedness.  Is it not obvious 
that the only thing you can do is to begin measuring.  
You'd measure their size, weight, density, chemical 
composition, heat, hardness, and any and all criteria.  
The resulting data could then be employed to designate the 
ways and degrees the rocks are related.  Would the same 
rational methods not be applicable to biological entities?

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 4/11/04 6:23:50 AM