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.
> 
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:-
>>>>The proposition was VERY SIMPLE:
>>>>EITHER Darwin's fertile organism level
>>>>allows or disallows the selection of
>>>>Hamilton's OFA gene. Does it allow it
>>>>or does it disallow it?
>>>
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>I'm not sure that "Darwin's fertile organism level"
allows or disallows
>>>anything.
>>
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>Every level of selection determines
>>>what shall be selected at _that_ level.
>>>OK?
>>
> 
> JE:-
> Do you agree or disagree that
> every level of selection determines
> what shall be selected at _that_ level.
> 
>  
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>It hardly seems to have the necessary capabilities to make
>>>these sorts of decisions.
>>
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>"Hardly seems to have the necessary capabilities"?
>>>We are talking about Darwinian natural selection
>>>and not incompetent gene centric Professors of
>>>Neo Darwinism.
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>Indeed.  There is no thought involved, so in no sense can anything be 
>>said to allow or disallow any actions.  It just happens.
>>
>>JE:-
>>Incorrect. 
> 
> 
> BOH;-
> If this is incorrect, then there must be thought involved.  In which 
> case, you're promulgating intelligent design.
> Now we'll see if Josh is awake.  :-)
> 
> [moderator' note: Josh is indeed awake, but maybe wishing he weren't.
> You know, you two are getting nowhere in this thread. Maybe you ought
> to give it a rest for a while, and let the group focus on other
> topics for a bit? I'm not insisting, but it's worth considering. - JAH]
> 
> JE:-
> _____________________________________
> I disagree with Josh. 

As an act of mercy to Josh...



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 3/2/04 11:51:18 AM