> > > M:-
> > > Of course. John's argument is largely theoretical and not backed up by
> > > empirical observations.
> >
> > JE:-
> > Yes, my argument is evolutionary theoretical
> > (this is an evolutionary theory discussion group!)
> > but it IS backed up by empirical observation.
> > The irony is the Neo Darwinian argument
> > has NOT been backed up by observation.
> > Not one single independent genomic gene fitness
> > has ever been documented within nature where
> > such an observation is absolutely required
> > to turn gene centric heuristics into
> > non never never land, biology.

> NAS:-
> I'm not sure quite what you are getting at, but perhaps you are
> referring to some quantity, that you view as being key, that is hard
> to measure directly. If so, then consider that predictions of this
> "never never land" theory have been laboriously tested, and the
> overwhelming majority of the empirical data suggests that neodarwinism
> theory is valid (in that it makes testable predictions which turn out
> to be accurate).

JE:-
Please provide just a single documented
observation of NATURE of an independent
genomic gene fitness. This is a genomic
gene fitness that has been measured within
nature that cannot also be a Darwinian fertile
organism centric fitness and which is
not fitness epistatic to every other
gene within one genome.


> > JE:-
> > OTOH, countless observations of Darwinian
> > fertile organism centric observations of
> > nature have been documented. Not a single
> > instance of organism fitness altruism (OFA) has
> > been documented where fertile organism
> > fitness mutualism (OFM, its contesting causative
> > theory opposite) cannot explain the same
> > observations. The reason this is so is because
> > the accounting device used to separate OFA
> > from OFM, Hamilton's rule, remains faulty.

> NAS:-
> This is not what I see as the standard useage of Hamilton's rule.
> Hamilton's rule is used to predict (or better, conceptualise) how
> selection operates on social traits.

JE:-
I have asked you on many occasions:
Has Hamilton's rule has been employed as a
stand alone accounting device to measure
when OFA can evolve within nature by
gene centric Neo Darwinism for over
50 years? Please answer.

> > JE:-
> > Because
> > the total fitness of the actor is not included
> > 100% of all measurement made by the rule remain
> > relative. This being the case, the rule cannot
> > distinguish between a fitness debit and fitness
> > credit. Did anybody have shares in Enron?

> NAS:-
> Oh, enough of the Enron thing, already. I'm getting bored with that.

JE:-
I'm sure the holder's of Enron script
were not bored! Enron accounting
logic remains exactly the same as
Hamilton's: a 100% relative accounting
logic.


> NAS:-
> The difference between debits and credits is the sign of the marginal
> fitness component of interest. For instance, the direct effect of the
> social trait on the actor is -c; if c > 0 this means that the direct
> effect is deleterious, if c < 0 then the effect is beneficial. Is all
> this really stemming from your inability to see that -c is positive
> when c<0?

NAS:-
A subtraction of c from rb is NOT sufficient
to determine when OFA can evolve because it
cannot separate a real investment
from just an altruistic give away.
This is inevitable because the rule has no
frame of reference. This will remain so
while r,b and c remain variables within
a stand alone accounting device.

The actor may gain in the short term because
the cost c is negative but only end up losing
out after the fitness of the actor has been
TOTALLED and c suddenly turns positive.
Unless the fitness of the actor becomes a
total it remains incomplete so the FINAL
measure of the cost of c remains UNKNOWN.
Only the final value for the sign of c can
measure when OFA can evolve. Only in this
ONE case is the total fitness of the
actor now included and not just excluded
from the rule. Unless the fitness of
the actor becomes one finite total for
that actor just a relative gain or loss
along the way means absolutely nothing
re: separating OFA from OFM using the rule.

If you employ just a relative sign of c as
some sort of real measure of OFM or OFA
you must end up confusing an altruistic give
away cost c with a selfishly mutual investment
cost c allowing OFM to be _incorrectly_
paraded as OFA. I put it to you that
this has been the case for over 50 years.
In gene centric Neo Darwinian OFM has been
incorrectly paraded as OFA via a misuse
of Hamilton's Rule.

> > JE:-
> > Please note only I have provided:
> > 1) A definition of absolute Darwinian
> > fitness which can be measured within nature.

> NAS:-
> I recall that this was simply the number of offspring that an
> individual has, right?

JE:-
Absolutely NOT.

It is: The total number of fertile
forms each parent reproduces into
one population. I must have posted
this definition over 1000 times
in the last 4 years!

> > 2) A experiment (NOT just a model) to test
> > this key concept to refutation.

> NAS:-
> Can you remind me what this way? I may have missed it. Also, I recall
> asking how your definition in (1) could be used to model the evolution
> of sex allocation . . . though I don't recall ever getting an answer
> to that.

JE:-
The experimental outline is as follows:
Take a natural population, e.g. fruit flies
and breed them. Artificially allow the total
number of fertile forms reproduced by each
parent to remain _exactly_ the same within that population
over as many generations as possible. My prediction
is no evolution, at all, can now occur in that population
because only random variation via random processes
that cannot be deleted from any natural population
remain available to produce heritable change.
This experiment deletes all Darwinian selection.
If it fails to do so the definition of selection
I have provided (which I argue only remains implicit
from Darwin's original reasoning) stands refuted.


> > JE:-
> > 3) My fitness logic remains self consistent,
> > measurable and entirely refutable.

> NAS:-
> Right, and my sex allocation question was a start at trying to refute
> your hypothesis. Only you insisted on being evasive. I would apply
> your 'logic' to the problem of sex allocation myself, however your
> thinking is far from clear, and no doubt after I had proved your
> fitness measure inadequate you would be claiming that I had
> misunderstood your fitness measure.

JE:-
I replied that I do not understand
what you are suggesting. I am happy
to subject my proposed Darwinian maximand
to refutation. However, judging by your
replies I have no confidence that you
even understand the maximand fitness that
was proposed. This being the case I
have no idea how your sex allocation
purports to refute it. This remains your
refutation process and not mine. So,
please define what you are attempting
to refute and then provide the proof
of how sex allocation could refute it.
Then outline an experiment that
may produce a prohibited observation
from my proposed totally Darwinian,
fertile organism centric maximand.



> > > M
> > > I suspect that if he could cast his argument in mathematical
> > >terms and get
> > > it to a mathematican, then, if sound, it would see the light of day.

> > JE:-
> > I am open to any mathematical help
> > Re: putting the total fitness of the
> > actor back into Hamilton's Rule. I
> > am also open to contesting arguments
> > that suggest that just a relative
> > difference between rb and c is sufficient
> > to separate OFA from OFM using Hamilton's
> > Rule. My argument remains, until proven
> > otherwise: it is NOT sufficient where
> > this can easily be proven.

> NAS:-
> Right, and my argument remains: "you clearly do not understand what
> Hamilton's rule is, not why it is used in evolutionary biology".

JE:-
Was Hamilton's rule applied
as a stand alone fitness accounting
device within gene centric Neo
Darwinism for over 50 years to
measure when OFA can evolve
within nature?

Again: please answer this question.

Regards,

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 11/22/04 12:21:02 PM