"Jim McGinn"  wrote:

> > BOH:-
> > . . . using relatedness to measure the degree
> > to which the phenotype of one individual can
> > be predicted from that in another, . . .

> JMcG:-
> You just blew it, Bob.  It's plainly demonstrable
> (provable) that relatedness does not measure the
> degree to which the phenotype of one individual
> can be predicted from that in another.  In fact
> it has nothing at all to do with such.  You and
> I have R = 0.  Nevertheless in terms of our
> respective phenotypes we are highly similar, well
> over 99% using whatever scale you choose.
> The funny thing is the textbook you indicated
> didn't even bother to discuss this issue at all.
> Why do you think that is?
> I'll tell you why, because like yourself they
> never even bothered to think about it before.

JE:-
What JMcG is correctly attempting to argue is that
genetic epistasis has been entirely deleted
from Hamilton’s Rule via the common process of
modelling simplification. At the moment relatedness
is only demonstrable on just an additive
gene by gene basis i.e. on a NON epistatic basis.
You can “measure the degree to which the phenotype
of  one individual can be predicted from that in
another” on just a gene by gene additive basis.
This is what Mendel achieved. This achievement
remains a major one. Being able to measure
on a gene by gene additive basis levels of
relatedness of phenotypes via the addition
of the genes that _correlate_ to these
phenotypes does NOT allow you to assume that
any genomic genes fitness is somehow INDEPENDENT
of every other unless you can produce at least
one documented observation of nature confirming
such. Not a single documented observation exists
of an independently selected genomic gene.
I exclude meiotic drive genes as an
example of an independently selected
genomic gene because their absolute
fitness has been reduced and thus
they are all heading for extinction. This
is why they are so uncommon. No rational
theory of evolution by natural selection can
allow extinction to be selected FOR.


Within Hamilton’s Rule rb has all the
“inherited” but (Fisher) defined “non heritable”
epistatic information deleted within rb
whereas c includes ALL of it. Hamilton had
no other choice but to delete all genomic
gene fitness epistasis because without
this basic deletion his heuristic supposition
of selfish (which just means independently
selectable) genomic genes contesting and
winning over selection at the Darwinian
fertile organism level, forcing organism
fitness altruism remains an impossibility.
If genomic gene are dependently selected at
the Darwinian level then they cannot force
organism fitness altruism at this level as
Hamilton et al suggests that they could.


Haldane’s Dilemma proved
that only a tiny minority of all genetic information
could be stored on just an additive gene by gene
basis within the human genome because our
genome was _unexpectedly_ proven to be tiny.
What Hamilton was attempting to do is
compare, on just a hopeless relative and not
any testable absolute fitness basis, rb which
has all genetic epistatic genomic gene fitnesses
deleted, with c where all of it remains included.
You may as well weigh a mouse and an
elephant and surmise the mouse weighs
more. Of course such an Mad Hatter event is
entirely possible using Hamilton’s fitness
weighing machine because it remains to this
very day, 100% relative.

One of the things that is happening here is a
very painful refutation of Fisher’s dictum:
only additive genetic information
can be validly regarded as “heritable” and therefore
“selectable” even if non additive information is
acknowledged to be “inherited”.

My Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
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 12/13/04 4:43:18 PM