John Edser wrote:

> PLEASE EXPLAIN: given the above 7 agreements and
> the fact that you wrote on Sun 29/02/2004:
> “Hamilton's rule can't be used to separate out
> mutualism and altruism” how can validly
> conclude that:
> 
> “I don't think it has been mis-used”?
> 
Because it isn't used to separate out mutualism and altruism.  If we a 
behaviour where we have measured r, b, and c (and from the value of c 
defined the behaviour as either altruism or mutualism), we can decide 
whether the behaviour (or to be precise the alleles coding for the 
behaviour) will invade a population.

> Given the fact that any admission of misuse would
> substantiate a considerable error on the part of
> yourself and your colleagues, why shouldn't sbe readers
> now validly conclude that your answer is only an attempt
> to protect your yourself, your colleagues and your
> point of view from valid criticism because it cannot
> be substantiated without contradicting one or more
> of your 7 admissions?
> 
Because the arguments make sense?  Actually the crux of my argument is 
Hamilton's rule hasn't been used in the way that you say it has.  If 
your argument is to have validity, then you should show clearly that 
Hamilton's rule has been used to separate altruism from mutualism.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara
Department 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: www.jnr-eeb.org
---
ţ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 3/23/04 10:28:07 AM