> "William Morse"  wrote

> Of course. The "welfare queen" is very highly adapted, and
in Darwinian
> terms it doesn't matter how to acquire the resources to pass on 
> your genes,
> as long as they are passed on. This is why "evolutionary
morality" is so
> ridiculous.

JE:-
In Darwinian terms it DOES matter how you "acquire 
the resources to pass on  your genes". This is
illustrated via the consistent misuse of Hamilton's
rule within gene centric Neo Darwinism. If the cost
of acquiring "the resources to pass on your genes"
only produces a relative fitness gain for an absolute 
fitness loss to yourself you are just selecting 
yourself to become extinct. The only possible 
way you can "acquire the resources to 
pass on your genes" at a cost that does not return
an absolute fitness loss to yourself is via a mutualised
Darwinian fitness association. To appreciate the 
enormity of this argument you have to firstly 
understand what exactly Darwinian fitness is.
In over 4 years of posting to sbe not a single
Neo Darwinian that posts here has indicted they 
actually understand what Darwinian fitness is.
The preoccupation of Neo Darwinism with organism
fitness altruism (OFA) can only be politically
motived IMO. The only other possible explanation is 
ineptitude.

Hamilton deleted a baseline fitness m from his rule.
This means the rule cannot discriminate between cost
c as an mutualized investment and cost c as a donation.
This means the rule was utterly misused from its very 
inception to measure when OFA could evolve and has been 
misused ever since.

Best Wishes,

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 9/11/04 9:47:06 PM