"Tim Tyler"  wrote in message
news:coebn2$1m04$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> Jim McGinn  wrote or quoted:
Someone wrote:
> > > ... 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.

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.  Positive "r" permits altruistic behaviors to be adaptive
in the sense of increasing inclusive fitness.  But the rule is valid
regardless of whether "r" is positive, negative, or zero.
---
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 11/29/04 4:21:43 PM