The Hamilton's rule debate debacle. (Was Re: Hamilton's Rule: a free lunch)

> JE:-
> It is exactly that point we are debating.
> <snip> In reality,
> the rule [Hamilton's] is not constrained until you put
> one of your constraints within it,
> explicitly as a GENERAL term. Can I
> suggest absolute organism fitness
> as this missing general constraint?

PF:-

It would please me if you stopped beating around the bush (of theoretical
complaint) and instead regularly spelled-out (for all to see) "exactly that
(by you believed to be more exact - though in relation to reality absurdely
exact ["exact" from "ex"+"act" ~= non interactive]) point" of yours
>snip<
1 x "absolute organism fitness" = 1 x *grandchild* (proposed since it is
'more to The Point' than "fertile offspring").

JE:-
You simply refuse to understand what I wrote.
I defined absolute fitness. This definition
becomes a _part_ of _one_ testable Darwinian theory.
I can do more than that. Your view that one
unit of absolute fitness = one grandchild is
not my view, it is yours. One quanta of fitness
is one fertile form reproduced, no exceptions,
in Darwin's, view. if you wish to develop
your view of absolute fitness, then fine, go ahead
and do so. At the moment you have not defined anything 
and have never produced a testable view of evolution. 

Best Wishes,
John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

[EMAIL PROTECTED]