Tim Tyler wrote:
> Perplexed in Peoria  wrote or quoted:
> 
>>"Tim Tyler"  wrote in message
news:coebn2$1m04$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
>>
>>>Jim McGinn  wrote or quoted:
> 
> 
>>>>>... Hamilton's rule is accepted because the majority
>>>>>of scientists who have taken a hard look at it think
>>>>>it has some validity.
>>>>
>>>>Some validity?  What does this supposedly mean?
>>>>Either it is valid or it is invalid.  Sounds like
>>>>nothing more than an excuse for vagueness.
>>>
>>>It could be a reference to the fact that Hamilton's rule
>>>assumes that the relatedness of the actors is known to
>>>the participants - whereas in nature, that condition
>>>is rarely met exactly - and usually there is some measure
>>>of uncertainty which causes a mismatich between relatedness
>>>and percieved relatedness.
>>
>>Tim, allow me to join the chorus of people who point out that Hamilton's
>>rule makes no such assumption.  Hamilton's rule doesn't even assume a
>>correlation between recipients and relatives.  If there is no correlation,
>>then "r" is zero.  Hamilton's rule works in all cases.
> 
> 
> I put the point I was trying to make so badly it was wrong :-(
> 
> 
>>You seem to be confusing kin selection (the Rule) with kin recognition.
>>Kin recognition is only one of many ways in which a positive
"r" can
>>be achieved.
> 
> 
> Yes indeed - I'm aware that +ve r can arise from things like viscous
> populations.
> 
> Still: Hamilton's rule is *far* too simple a model to be a very
> good match for reality - and so "some validity" still seems like the 
> appropriate term.
> 
> For example, it doesn't take into account the possibility of
> antagonistic pleiotropy - which might alter the selection
> coefficients on genes it considers.
> 
> For another example, Hamilton's rule totally fails to take into
> consideration the age of the recipient of the altruism.
> 
> A post menopausal-female relative with no kids is not normally
> worth being nice to - but that is ignored in Hamilton's rule.
> 
In this case, there would be no fitness gain from helping them, so b 
would be zero.  So, even if Hamilton's rule doesn't explicitly include 
this, it's because it does so implicitly (i.e. the rule doesn't tell you 
how to calculate fitness in particular cases, only what to do with them 
afterwards).

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2b)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland

Telephone: +358-9-191 51479
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 51400
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: www.jnr-eeb.org
---
ž RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2į’* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/6/04 6:36:09 AM