john edser

JE:-
It appears McGinn cannot even count.

JMcG:-
No, it is the smallest vesrion of it you
can have. Mene*** asked for it so I
provided it.

JM:-

JE:-
I am sure you are just one of a herd.

JE:-
The experiment I outlined provides
a refutation for TDF. I rest my case.
I will have nothing more
to do with McGinn until he provides
a rational critique of this experiment.

McGinn cannot even finish reading
something just to discover what it is
because he fears he may be entirely
wrong. I suggest McGinn seek
psychological help, ASAP.

My Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au

john edser

JE:-
"John's definition" is NOT the same as the
"one that Hamilton started with in his 1964 paper"!
Why do I have to endlessly repeat the simple
definition of total Darwinian Fitness I provided
over 500 times to sbe over 4 years
or so? Can't people even read? Perhaps they
all have acute forms of short term memory loss?
Most likely they do not wish to understand it
because it provides a challenge to their _non_
empirical dogma.

You cannot measure
"individual fitness by counting offspring over
a generation". You are required to count something
else. My assertion is a proposition based on
_empirical_ observation and not just over simplistic
modelling. The key experiment I outlined that McGinn
refused to even read let alone understand, provides
the reason as to why. If you only hold the number of
"offspring over a generation" to be the same,
evolution cannot be halted within a natural
experimental population. Only if the
total number of fertile forms reproduced into
one population can be artificially maintained the
same for all members of one population over
many generations can natural selection be
halted. Try anything else. Try life spans
or perhaps the number of eggs laid, anything
you like. None of them can halt natural selection
within one population. Only the proposition
I have provided for Total Darwinian Fitness
(TDF) works. It is that simple.


Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au

john edser

JE:-
In the above, m remains a Newtonian constant.
The constant m cannot be resolved into a set
of variables. Only mass can add or subtract mass.

JE:-
Mass now becomes a variable: it could now be resolved
into other things. Mass increased or decreased
with velocity within Einstein's calculations.


JE:-
All you have done is mathematically eliminate
the constants G and M. They still REMAIN within
the parent theory as constants of SCIENCE.
It is purely an illusion that they have been
eliminated. Can you imagine the consternation
if somebody argued that the simplified
model: 1/r^2 can validly compete and win against
the parental theories: f=GMm/r^2 or f =ma?
This is exactly what Hamilton's Rule attempts
to do.


JE:-
No just 3: r,b and c.


JE:-
It becomes non verified because the readings
remain INCOMPLETE until rb ENDS, which is
NEVER DOES until cmax is paid.

JE:-
NO, because the measure of the allele
increasing in freq. remains JUST A
100% relative measure... i.e. IT NEVER
ENDS until cmax is paid.

JE:-
Only such a suggestion is DEFINITIVE.
Nothing can be refuted using an EVER
ONGOING MEASURE. Why isn't this perfectly
clear?

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au

perplexed in peoria

No it is not what Hamilton's rule attempts to do.
But we are talking about epistemology here, not biology.

You had said that when a model simplifies a theory
by deleting a constant, that model is no longer
refutable. I have provided a counter-example. The
model has deleted G, M, and m. OF COURSE they still
remain in the parent theory - that is not the point.
They have been removed from the model, and you claimed
that that must inevitably make the MODEL irrefutable.

Please stick to the topic at hand and stop bringing up
Hamilton.