"Perplexed in Peoria" 
> > correlation in what?

> JM:- 
> Correlation between being a recipient and being a relative.  Tim 
> was saying
> that it is assumed that the donor can distinguish relatives from 
> non-relatives
> and adjusts his behavior so that recipients are mostly relatives.  Tim is
> correct in claiming that if the donor does this, then there will 
> be a positive
> "r" and the behavior will be favored by selection if the
ratio of benefit
> to cost is high enough.  I pointed out that the rule still 
> applies even if the
> donor bestows its altruism indiscriminately upon the general population
> ("r" of zero) or if the donor perversely bestows its altruism only on
> non-relatives (slightly negative "r").  The rule still works - it 
> just doesn't
> predict the spread of altruism in these cases.

JE:-
Firstly, Hamilton's rule fails if
so called altruistic genomes seek 
each other out (examples are Darwkins
popular "green beard" fitness epistatic
gene or even seeking out relatives who
are more likeley to have the "altruistic
gene"). Genomic gene fitness epistasis (e)
is required to be put back into the rule 
(it remains entirely deleted by Hamilton 
et al):

	r^eb > c

The number of recipients receiving b
largess from the actor must increase
geometrically as e only increases in just
a lineal way making the rule inoperable.

Hamilton et al have stipulated random 
mating because only this heuristic 
assumption allows Hamilton's so called
"altruistic" gene to just relatively 
spread compared to the wild type allele
it is competing against. Of course such
a relative gain may constitute as absolute
loss. The rule as it stands cannot measure
this possibility unless the total fitness
of the actor is put back into the rule.
This is why the rule cannot be used as
a stand alone fitness measuring device
to determine when organism fitness altruism
can evolve within nature. Yet, this remains
the only applied function of the rule for
over 50 years.

> > > If there is no correlation,
> > > then "r" is zero.

> > Uh, you sure about that?

> JM:-
> Yes.  Well, to be more precise, it will be either zero or (-1/N), 
> depending
> on whether you count yourself as a member of the population for 
> purposes of
> calculating the correlation.


JE:-
The value r cannot be zero unless life was not decended
from just one common ancestor.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au


> 
> John's misunderstanding seems to be on the meaning of "b" and "c.

JE:-
My understanding is based on 
Hamilton et al AND the way the rule has 
been incorrectly applied within evolutionary
theory.

As I recently posted r =0.5 can only exist
for your own offspring when b applies to
fitness gains made over to recipients who
are the offspring of another parent and not
that other parent which is the case within
Hamilton's measure of b. Most people entirely confuse
"Haldane's Rule" with Hamilton's Rule because
they assume recipients who are not their own 
offspring can be validly related  r = 0.5.
This is only possible within "Haldane's Rule"
where the beneficiary is the other parent and
_not_ the offspring of that other parent (one
entire generation difference). Refer to almost
any "authority" at random and you will see this
glaring error due to sloppy Neo Darwinistic 
thinking.

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
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 12/7/04 6:21:06 AM