From: Martin Nowak To: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation®gmail.com>, Corina Tamita Subject: Fwd: [forgot to cc] Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 19:32:31 +0000 Attachments: GeorgeWilliams.doc Begin forwarded message: From: Date: September 12, 2010 3:06:09 PM EDT To: "Martin Nowak" • cr > Subject: [forgot to cc] Original Message Subject: viel in Dank From: Date: Sun, September 12, 2010 3:03 pm To: "Karl Sigmund" lieber karl viel in herzlichen Dank fuer ihren e-mail. i was glad you liked my private letter better than the public since i have already withdrawn my name from it--i do not believe in attacking someone twice, certainly not in private and then again in public. also it has now grown in size and co-authors such that i am biased in the opposite direction, i.e. if i see 117 people running in one direction, i naturally assume the opposite one has something to do say for itself! "In contrast to Martin, I think that indirect fitness is a useful concept, and that inclusive fitness can, in principle at least, be well defined even without all the assumptions about weak selection etc. Like with the Price equation, we are talking about a method of book-keeping. It is a matter of taste whether one finds it enlightening or not. But it is certainly possible to use alternative methods of accounting to track selection-mutation effects. It may make sense to compute the inclusive fitness of a worker ant, but it probably stops making sense to compute the inclusive fitness of a body cell in a multicellular organism." I AGREE WITH ALL OF THIS "However, a school of thought (Alan Grafen, Stu West, Andy Gardner, Peter Taylor, ...) has elevated the IF method into a mantra. Their actual results are quite limited, EFTA00756622