William L Hunt wrote:-

> >1. Introduction
> >Hamilton's Rule was used to
> >support organism fitness altruism 
> >(OFA) in nature after classical
> >group selection failed to be able 
> >to do so over 50 years ago.
> >It was argued the rule can measure
> >when an altruistic gene can spread 
> >within one population. 
> >Gene centric Neo Darwinistic
> >viewpoints such as Dawkins'
> >selfish geneism and Wilson's
> >sociobiology remain dependent
> >on Hamilton's logic.
> >2. Discussion
> >Using Hamilton's Rule
> >when:
> >	rb>c ... (i)
> >where:
> >r = a defined measure of relatedness
> >b = a defined measure of resources 
> >c = the cost of b in fitness units

> WH:-   
>  You have to be careful that your units match of the left and right
> side of rb > c. Since r is unitless, b and c must have the same units
> (fitness units). From your definitions, it appears c is in fitness
> units but b is in some kind of resource units. Unless you meant to
> say?:
> b = a defined measure of resources in fitness units.

JE:-
Yes b is "a defined measure of resources in fitness units"
where exactly the same fitness units must be employed for 
all measurements made by the rule.

In this review I attempted to avoid defining exactly
what fitness units I argue should be employed because
it does not alter the basic argument: Hamilton's rule
has been misused for over 50 years to support organism
fitness altruism (OFA) no matter what fitness units are
employed. 

The fitness units I insist must be employed are Darwinian
fitness units, i.e. one total per selectee of the number
of fertile forms reproduced within one population. It 
remains doubtful if Hamilton et al differentiated between
fertile and infertile forms. Hamilton's suggestion that
a heuristic independent gene level of selection could be
validly applied to nature would mean that genes reproduced
into sterile forms stand as valid gene level units of
selection. If this is the case then gene level totals
would be a total that included both sterile and non sterile 
forms.

I remain stunned and amazed at what appears to be Neo
Darwinian ineptitude on this critical matter. Why
has such a basic error remained uncorrected re: valid
APPLICATIONS of the rule to the science of biology?
It appears to me that evolutionary theory remains
in the hands of biologically ignorant mathematicians
who have no concept of what they are supposed to be
talking about. I can only conclude that political
bias (in this case from the far left) has been allowed
to dominate evolutionary theory. The terms "altruism" 
and "selfishness" remain politically loaded terms
that should never have been employed within evolutionary
theory. It is no secret that Hamilton was politically
far left. Dawkins has actively discussed his political
posture. His recent comments re: Bush were outrageous
as were his previous comments about Margaret Thatcher. Tax 
payers are funding most of this nonsense and they are not 
stupid. It is up to biologists to recognise how their science
is being misused for what appears to be political ends.

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 9/7/04 9:39:01 AM