"Reason"  wrote:

> R:-
> Beyond kin-bonded benefits, there are also synergistic
> relationships which
> can benefit both parties, regardless of genetic similarity. Symbiosis
> between different organisms is, in fact such an arrangement.
> Social groups
> can form for mutual benefit; cooperatives are a good example in the human
> sphere.

JE:-
The  above argument remains THE
key to the entire altruist/selfish NON
argument that has entirely dominated
evolutionary theory for over 50 years. Both terms:
"altruism" and "selfishness" remain political
and _not_ scientific, polarities. Hamilton
et al have a lot to answer for. Their
argument is based on a popular falsehood:
organism fitness altruism (OFA) can be differentiated
from organism fitness mutualism (OFM) using
Hamilton's rule :

	rb-c > 0

where:

r = a measure of relatedness (normally IBD).
b = resources transferred in fitness units.
c = the cost of b in the same fitness units.

Just a cursory inspection of the rule indicates
that rb-c is only a _relative_ fitness difference.
No absolute fitness total, exists. This means
no frame of reference exists for Hamilton's
rule. This means that it makes about as much
sense as E=Mc^2 where c is just a variable!

Because the total fitness of the actor (in
Hamilton's rule "the actor" represents the potential
altruist who is donating b at cost c to itself
to unnamed recipient/recipients) is not represented
within the rule as a general term it remains impossible
to measure any difference between c as an "altruistic"
donation and c an a "selfish" investment. This
means is that if the cost c is repaid to the actor
> c then c cannot be validly claimed as an
altruistic donation because it represents a
selfish investment. Unless this is the case,
as the altruistic gene only relatively increases
compared to the wildtype gene both genes move to
extinction because the population is crashing.

An actor cannot donate more than c(max) unless
fitness is obtained from nowhere. Also, all
fitnesses must add up to cmax otherwise
fitness has not been accounted for.
Cmax represents the total number of fertile
forms the actor would have reproduced if it
had not invested/donated anything. If the actor
donates cmax then it has nothing at all
left over to reproduce itself with.

If the total Darwinian fitness of the actor
is K then cmax = K. Therefore, altruism can
only be _proven_ when K has been donated
using just the relative difference between rb
and c via subtraction. This represents the only proven
case of OFA. Here the actor will appear sterile like.
Note that this is NOT the same as sterility because
the actor will have fully functional reproductive
machinery that is however, selected _not_ to be used.

Quite clearly an "ethic" does exist within nature.
Unless absolute fitness gains are mutual fitness
associations are not stable. It is that simple.

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 10/5/04 10:03:51 PM