***** Continued From Previous Message *****
or a long time and has been used and abused.
> > > Just because a proposition can be proven to
> > > be logically valid does not mean, that because
> > > of this fact, it has to be true. Do I have to
> > > labour this point? You must allow for the fact
> > > that the rule may be _absolutely_, untrue even
> > > if it appears to be verified.
> 
> > NAS:-
> > So why don't you understand what I keep trying to tell you?
> > Hamilton's rule is always valid, but the output is only as true as the
> > input.
> 
> > JE:-
> > You simply missed the point. Because
> > "Hamilton's rule is always valid"
> > does _not_ mean that "the output is
> > only as true as the input" it means
> > the output may be untrue no matter
> > what the input is, or the reverse,
> > the output may always be true no
> > matter what the input.
> 
> NAS:-
> No, it is as good as the input.
> It is false if the input is false,
> it is true if the input is true.
> 
> JE:-
> OK, if what you say is true
> you will be able to provide
> refutations for Hamilton's rule,
> if it isn't you will not be able
> to. To prove me wrong provide a
> refutation for Hamilton's rule.
> 

And what would you consider to be a refutation, John?

> > > JE:-
> > > If I gave you the rule:
> > > Juice the apples in the basket and
> > > not the pears in the bucket when
> > > these apples are cheaper than those
> > > pears, what would you require to
> > > know to be able to carry out such
> > > a rule?
> 
> > NAS:-
> > That you're not secretly going to video me doing so and use my wilful
> > destruction of other persons' property as evidence in an
> > out-of-context character assassination . . . ?
> 
> > JE:-
> > Haha. We all like a good joke.
> > However, I was being serious.
> 
> NAS:-
> So was I.
> 
> >snip<
> 
> JE:-
> OK then: "what would you require to
> know to be able to carry out such
> a rule?"
> 

How to work a juicer?

> >snip<
> 
> > NAS:-
> > But if i wasn't able to produce a precise mathematical model, then you
> > would only have my word on it.
> 
> > JE:-
> > Absolutely NOT. Science is about
> > theory building not just model building.
> > Why do you think this discussion group
> > is called "evolutionary theory" and not
> > "evolutionary models"? You have been
> > so badly taught you do not understand
> > the difference between a simplified model
> > and the theory it was only simplified from
> > so it is impossible for you to understand
> > the difference between a used and a
> > misused model.
> 
> NAS:-
> Well what about a wealth of empirical support from the social insects
> themselves?
> 
> JE:-
> So what?
> Thousands of instances of warts and moles
> on noses and ears etc as signes of the devil
> were used as "a wealth of empirical support"
> to the fact these women were burnable witches.
>

But Hamilton's rule has predictive power; warts and moles do not.

> Without valid points of refutation
> "empirical support" means nothing to
> the sciences.
> 
> >snip<
> 
> > NAS:-
> > So, where does the reversal of cause and effect come into the group
> > selection / kin selection disparity?
> 
> > JE:-
> > Only kin selection switches a KNOWN INDEPENDENT
> > organism fitness into just a DEPENDENT organism
> > fitness within one rb, gene centric kin
> > selective TOTAL (see discussion at beginning
> > of this post). The process of just switching a
> > known, testable independent fitness into
> > a dependent fitness within an over
> > simplified model, totally reverses cause and
> > affect. This is why Hamilton's logic can only
> > allow organism fitness altruism within nature, if
> > and only if, his SUPPOSED independent gene level
> > of selection actually existed within nature.
> > This level does NOT exist within nature and zero
> > FERTILE organisms are fitness dependent within
> > nature. Neo Darwinians are living in Alice In
> > Wonderland if they think that Hamilton's
> > views are REAL.
> 
> NAS:-
> Or maybe you have just misunderstood the meaning of b, c and r, and
> hence the validity of r b > c .
> 
> JE:-
> OR, maybe yourself and the entire Neo Darwinian
> establishment has chronically misused an
> oversimplified model of Darwinian fitness.
> 

Then why don't you get on with your groundbreaking JTB paper then,
John?

> > JE:-
> > Group selection incorrectly assumes
> > that an independent grouped fitness level
> > can compete and win against an independent
> > organism fitness level which is always logically
> > below the group level. Such an event is impossible
> > because the organism level is ALWAYS the FIRST
> > INDEPENDENT level of selection within this multilevel
> > _because_ it is situated below the group level.
> > Thus the organism level is always selected before
> > the organism group level, even can be. All selection at
> > the group level can do is go with and not against,
> > selection at the organism level. When group selection
> > attempts to contradict selection at the organism
> > level then _both_ levels lose out so natural selection,
> > acting firstly at the organism level
> > selects against such an event. In extremes
> > this may require the removal of an entire population.
> > Despite superficial appearances, the removal of
> > one entire population is NOT group selective,
> > it is _strictly_ Darwinian organism selective.
> 
> NAS:-
> Whether you partition fitness into within group and between group
> components or simply collapse all selection at all levels down to the
> individual level is a personal, arbitrary choice.  Mathematically,
> they are equivalent.  One is not *wrong* and one is not *right*; they
> are equally valid ways of looking at things, and they are not
> contradictory.
> 
> JE:-
> The argument above just deletes testable
> cause and affect within a science
> so it constitutes a MASSIVE error.
> It is equal in impact to the "error"
> Enron accountants made when they fraudulently
> substituted debits with credits. This type of error
> is so enormous, but so arrogantly trumpeted as
> valid, that nobody dares to believe
> that any error is actually being made. The
> sentence:  "Mathematically, they are equivalent"
> says it all!  Mathematics is _not_ a science.
> It is being consistently abused within the
> science of biology by indifferent Neo Darwinists.
> Such people consistently misuse over simplified
> mathematical models, reversing testable cause
> and  affect within a science of evolutionary
> theory turning biological science onto its head.
> 
> Best Wishes,
> 

Ha!
---
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 11/28/03 5:27:18 PM