Re: Hamilton's Rule is Xeno's Paradox ( was Re: Underestimating
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 01:11:45 -0400 (EDT)
William Morse wdmorse@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
> You may want to note that E Kurtz was responding to John Edser's post,
> and accusing John of being an idiot. I do agree that while John is
> exasperating, and has on occasion made personal attacks himself, ad
> hominem arguments have no place on the newsgroup.
JE:
I would like to point out that stating that something is "absurd" is not a
"personal attack" yet it is incorrectly taken to be so by many here. Also, I
do not consider just a humorous description of population genetics as a "Mad
Hatter's Tea Party" to be an _unwarranted_ attack on population genetics. I
do not consider calling Prof. Felsenstein "The Pope of Neo Darwinism to be a
personal attack on him, just a lampooning of what I continue to argue to be
Felsenstein's consistent and utter misuse of oversimplified models within
evolutionary theory produced by Felsenstein et al throwing out Karl Poppers
most basic requirement: theories of nature must remain refutable. Hamilton's
Rule remains not refutable yet it is allowed to contest, win against and
finally replace refutable Darwinism by only HEURISTICALLY forcing organism
fitness altruism at the Darwinian level of selection.
> I had long thought, as EKurtz has argued, that Zeno's paradox was
> adequately resolved by the theory of limits. However, I do remember an
> article a number of years ago in Scientific American that challenged this
> resolution, as you have done. Unfortunately I am not a good enough
> theoretical mathematician to comment more, and in any case I don't think
> the discussion belongs on sbe. However, I have enjoyed your further
> thought experiments on Achilles-tortoise races.
JE:-
The paradox was never _empirically_ based (none of them ever are). The
original mathematical description of the _empirical_ events described by
just a _mathematical_ paradox was flawed because the constant time had been
deleted. Simple. Mathematics cannot make empirical sense unless at least one
constant algebraic term is included so as to provide a critical frame of
reference for the mathematical description. Any mathematical description of
an empirical event remains a meaningless tautological description unless at
least one algebraic constant term is included.
If you consider yourself to be a non biased person of integrity then please
take another look at Felsenstein's starting assumptions for his derivation
of HR.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Hamilton's Rule: light at the end of a LONG tunnel?
- Next by Date: Re: Hamilton's Rule: light at the end of a LONG tunnel?
- Previous by thread: Re: Hamilton's Rule is Xeno's Paradox ( was Re: Underestimating
- Next by thread: Re: Hamilton's Rule is Xeno's Paradox ( was Re: Underestimating
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
