John Edser wrote:
>>>I ask you (yet again): do you agree or disagree that
>>>Hamilton's rule was misused when it was suggested that 
>>>it could allow a valid explanation of how OFA
>>>evolves within nature?
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>I have answered this before.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>No, you just contradicted yourself, 
>>"before". Now you are evading
>>providing the only honest answer.
>>You agreed that Hamilton's rule cannot
>>tell OFA from OFM because the sign of
>>c remains arbitrary  within the rule
>>(it has to be because rb and c are
>>only _relative to each other) and
>>remains the  only way to tell OFM form OFA. 
>>Therefore you must make the only possible
>>inference from these facts that is possible 
>>re: the use or misuse of Hamilton's rule.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> OK, let's get this clear:
> 1. OFM is defined (for our purposes) as c0.
> 2. Hamilton's rule cannot be used to distinguish OFM from OFA, as it is 
> valid under both - i.e. it works for all values of c
> 3. If you want to decide whether you have OFM or OFA, measure c.
> 
> JE:-
> You are still just contradicting
> yourself: 3 contradicts 2 (above)
> disallowing the assumption of 1.
> 
> 
> You _cannot_ define OFM "for our purposes"
> as c0 simply because zero remains
> _arbitrary_ within Hamilton's rule. 

But the deficitions of OFM and OFA are outside Hamilton's rule.  For 
Hamilton's rule you only need to know the value of c (and r and b).

Where, in the inequality rb>c are OFM and OFA distinguished?


> Do you agree or disagree?
> 
>   **  Please answer this question. **
> 
Again?  No, I'm gonig to put a stop to me repeatedly being asked the 
same question.



> This is supposed to be a science list.
> Suggesting selection "just happens" is 
> an insult to sbe reader's intelligence.
> BOH is _consistently_ contradicting himself
> and flatly refuses to answer basic questions
> put to him. Thus I can only conclude that
> BOH is dishonestly evading the bread and butter 
> issues that are under discussion:
> 
> 1) What is fitness.
> 2) How is it measured.

The answers to these questions are in the lecture notes to the course I 
gave in the autumn.  The lecture notes are on the web at 
http://www.rni.helsinki.fi/~boh/Teaching/Selection/Selec.html>.

> 3) The logic of automatic natural selection.
> 
For this, you should try reading Darwin, or an introductory book on 
evolutionary theory.  Cheetahs that can run more quickly will catch more 
food, and so be less likely to starve, and more likely to mate.  This 
means that they are more likely to have offspring than slower cheetahs. 
  This is Life just happening.  The fact that this leads to natural 
selection and evolution is, in some senses serendipidous.

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 3/4/04 11:54:56 AM