Name And Address Supplied wrote:

> > > > > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > > > > Within Hamilton's rule the two fitnesses
> > > > > > > > > being compared are inclusive fitness
> > > > > > > > > (rb) and Darwinian fitness implied as
> > > > > > > > > as just the cost (c).

> > > > > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > > > > This is wrong. Conventionally,
inclusive fitness is r b -
> > > > > > > > c, not r b.

> > > > JE:-
> > > > Then "Hamiltonian fitness" is not
> > > > "inclusive fitness". Please provide
> > > > the fitness label that you now argue
> > > > denoted one rb fitness total
> > > > within Hamilton's rule.

> > > NAS:-
> > > Something like 'inclusive fitness benefit', perhaps?

> > JE:-
> > You mean that you really expect sbe readers
> > to believe that nobody, including Hamilton
> > himself, never ever defined a _biological_
> > term for the multiple rb within Hamilton's
> > rule?

> NAS:-
> That's not what I said. I'm sure someone has given it a name along the
> way.

JE:-
The fact that nobody has come up
with a name for one rb fitness total
within biology means that nobody
seems interested in making sense of rb
within a science of biology. Yet,
Neo Darwinists accept that rb can be a
competing fitness total that can be compared
to c by simple subtraction. This indicates
that only the mathematics really mattered
to these model builders.


> NAS:-
> All I am saying is that you are not following convention if you
> describe 'r b' as 'inclusive fitness'. This is crucial, because
> Hamilton argues that natural selection will maximise inclusive
> fitness, i.e. the measure r b - c. He is emphatically not saying that
> r b is the maximand.

JE:-
I will henceforth, define rb-c as inclusive
fitness. Given what you say, inclusive
fitness (rb-c) must be Hamilton's maximand.
Please indicate if you agree or disagree.

> > > > JE:-
> > > > Any relative fitness is a comparison.
> > > > Any subtraction is just a comparison.
> > > > What was being compared is what was being
> > > > subtracted. What was being subtracted
> > > > here, is c from rb.

> > > NAS:-
> > > No, c is subtracted from baseline fitness (call it K), and r b is
> > > being added.

> > JE:-
> > The missing fitness K,
> > remains the key to Hamilton's
> > conundrum. Is this why it has
> > remained invisible within the
> > rule? I insist it becomes explicit
> > within the rule so the Darwinian
> > doors can be unlocked.

> NAS:-
> In simple terms which you might be able to follow (since you seem to
> abhor discussions of marginal fitness)...


JE;-
Until you define marginal fitness
I have no idea what it was supposed
to mean. Please indicate if marginal
fitness is absolute, relative or neither.


> NAS:-
>,then the actor has inclusive
> fitness K if it does not do the act, and inclusive fitness K + r b - c
> if it does do the act.  It increases its inclusive fitness when
> K + r b - c > K
> i.e. when
> r b > c
> Note that the value of K is irrelevant.

JE:-
We have had this discussion before...
By "including" K on both sides
you have entirely deleted it, i.e.
you have NOT included it. If I
include the height of the Sydney
Harbour Bridge on both sides of the
rule as H then:


	H + K + r b - c > K + H

Does this mean I have included the height
of the Sydney Harbour Bridge within Hamilton's
rule? An infinite number of deleted variables
exist on BOTH sides of Hamilton's rule...
Why do I have to point out to you that
for K to be included within the rule
it can only appear on one side of the
rule?

> > JE:-
> > In the meantime:
> > Please define the ghost baseline
> > fitness K that has remained hidden
> > for over 50 years within the rule and
> > then provide a term that describes what
> > K means within any science of biology.

> NAS:-
> It could mean alot of things. Above I have defined it as the fitness
> when the act is not acted out. A better scheme might be to define it
> as the population mean fitness.

JE:-
You cannot define anything as just a negative
because you cannot know what you do not know.
Your phrase "the population mean fitness"
is  NON REAL. You have misused a mathematical
model. Any proposed maximand must be a real
biological concept, i.e. NOT just a statistical
measure. Please provide a REAL maximand.

> > JE:-
> > The middle step where "c is subtracted
> > from baseline fitness (call it K), and
> > r b is being added" makes absolutely
> > no difference since, as you CONCLUDE....
> >
> > > NAS:-
> > > The net effect is r b - c, ..

> > JE:-
> > Thus rb remains compared to
> > c within the rule, no exceptions.

> NAS:-
> Right; if r b > c, then the social trait will evolve.

JE:-
Wrong.  This standard biological
translation remains invalid.
The relative gain to recipient/
recipients may constitute just
an absolute loss to them reducing
and not increasing their absolute
fitness. The loss to the actor
may constitute an absolute gain
to the actor so that the diagnosed
altruism may be just sham altruism,
i.e. provide an absolute fitness
gain to the actor.


>snip<

> > > > JE:-
> > > > ERGO: rb and c were
> > > > the ASSUMED fitness TOTALS being compared
> > > > within the rule were rb (the HAMILTONIAN total)
> > > > commonly referred to as "inclusive fitness"
> > > > and c, the cost of b. This c cost is the
> > > > total cost IN DARWINIAN FITNESS to the
> > > > actor.

> > > NAS:-
> > > You are extremely confused, John. rb is not a fitness total, it is a
> > > component of fitness, or more precisely, a component of marginal
> > > fitness. c is another component.

> > JE:-
> > Your BIOLOGY is extremely confused.
> > Once again you have failed to translate
> > mere mathematics into a VALID BIOLOGY.
> > The multiple rb is the only finite
> > fitness total that can represents
> > Hamilton's _competing_ fitness (which
> > you insisted was never even given a
> > biological term).

> NAS:-
> Fitness is a maximand.

JE:-
A hand waving fitness is not sufficient.
Exactly what objective (something that
can be measured) fitness constitutes
a fitness maximand.

> NAS:-
> Hamilton demonstrated that when there is
> relatedness, simply looking at the direct consequences of the act for
> the actor is not sufficient. We need to consider possible effects on
> relatives, and weight these effects by relatedness.

JE:-
These fitness effects must be
reproductive. Correct?

> NAS:-
> So, Hamilton's
> maximand is r b – c, and this ‘competes' with the notion that the true
> maximand is  -c.

JE:-
No valid maximand can be negative
within the biological sciences!
Please rework your model -c
maximand to become positive.

>snip<

> > > > JE:-
> > > > NOTE: all these values are just
> > > > variables. Not a single constant exists
> > > > within the rule.

> > > NAS:-
> > > They are not variables, they are functions.
> > > dw/dx = r[x] b[x] - c[x]

> > JE:
> > In the science of biology r, b
> > and c remain variables.

> NAS:-
> For the sake of argument, lets go along with that.

JE:-
No, for the sake of a testable,
i.e. scientifically valid biology.
I insist that you agree or disagree
that r,b and c are biological variables
and not just mathematical functions
within Hamilton's rule.

> NAS:-
> Is there anything
> ‘in the science of biology' which says a mathematical rule made up
> only of ‘variables' is somehow deficient? No appeals to physics now,
> John.

JE:-
So, physics is not a refutable science?
All refutable ideas follow the same logic
In this logic a _refutable_ maximand is
required. Please provide one.

> > > > > > > JM:-
> > > > > > > This is also wrong.  At least as Hamilton defined
> > > > > > > inclusive fitness in
> > > > > > > 1964.  He defined it as something like
(K + rb - c),
> > > > > > > where K would be
> > > > > > > the fitness that an organism would have
if all social
> > > > > > > interactions were
> > > > > > > excluded (and the costs of those interactions).

> > > > JE:-
> > > > The above constitutes Hamilton's fumble.
> > > > This failed attempt to include an explicit
> > > > absolute fitness general term within his rule
> > > > so that the rule could make biological sense
> > > > proved fatal.
> > > > When the absolute fitness of the actor
> > > > is explicitly included within the rule
> > > > then:
> > > >
> > > > 		rb > K
> > > >
> > > > 	where:
> > > >
> > > >  K = Darwinian fitness of the actor.

> > > NAS:-
> > > This just doesn't make sense, John.

> > JE:-
> > You obviously have no idea of
> > the overriding importance of K
> > (Darwinian fitness)
> > when it is explicitly included
> > within Hamilton's rule.
> >
> > _______________________________________
> > IF any donor donates ALL of its resources
> > to recipient/recipients which would
> > have otherwise enabled that actor to raise
> > a maximal total of infertile forms it
> > would have reproduced itself to fertile
> > adulthood THEN it can only raise zero of
> > its own unless it is supplied with a
> > "free lunch", i.e. such an actor is always
> > sterile like.
> > ______________________________________
> >
> > Please indicate if you understand/do
> > not understand, this extremely simple
> > argument.

> NAS:-
> It seems to be a statement about a particular special case. I suppose
> I agree, unless I have misunderstood. What does it matter?

JE:-
Lets get this right. This is
what you are asking: It does
not matter if the only maximand
that can represent an objective
total fitness (which can be shown to
be the only possible way to stop all
selection within a natural population)
is or is not included within a rule
that only contains 3 biological
variables but purports to refute
that maximand via organism fitness
altruism?

> > > > JE:-
> > > >  This is not an ESS (evolutionary stable
> > > >  strategy) because the actor becomes
> > > >  sterile like.

> > > NAS:-
> > > What?

> > JE:-
> > Any population of sterile like forms
> > becomes extinct.

> NAS:-
> Right, but genes for sterile like forms might exist in reproductives,
> i.e. the sterile-caste gene might go to fixation, but this does not
> necessarily drive the population extinct.

JE:-
Eusocial sterility never needed
Hamilton's rule to explain it.
In fact, common multiple mating
by queens within haplodiploid
Hymenopteran forms makes it
less likely and not more
likely that that sterility can
evolve using Hamilton's rule.
Isopteran forms are normal
diploid forms. No haplodiploid
bias for organism fitness
altruism exists here. The
simple fact is fertile forms are
neither altruistic or selfish.
They have zero Darwinian fitness
in their own  right _because_ they
are sterile. Genes within sterile
forms can only be selected
within their fertile parents.
This being the case, sterile
forms cannot give fitness
away because they have none
to give away.



> > > > JE:
> > > >  However, only this ONE case proves
> > > >  organism fitness altruism within nature.
> > > >  All cases of Hamilton's rule without K
> > > >  remain ambiguous because the rule cannot distinguish
> > > >  between a reduced donation and an investment.
> > > >  This being the case the rule without K remains
> > > >  _biologically_ meaningless even if the _maths_
> > > >  is valid.

> > > NAS:-
> > > If K represents what I think it is meant to represent (i.e. a baseline
> > > fitness) then I cannot make sense of what you are saying, John.

> > JE:-
> > Please read what I wrote.
> > I don't expect you to like
> > it but I do expect you to
> > understand it as testable
> > BIOLOGY.

> NAS:-
> Can you be more explicit as to what you mean by a ‘reduced donation'
> and an ‘investment'?

JE:-
I have defined them previously.
They are defined (yet again) above.
While I wear out my computer keyboard
repeatedly defining terms for you
and others (even after I have
filled in the form "A DECLARATION
OF MEANING") you fail to complete
the form and define almost nothing.

Pleas define:

1) What you mean by
a baseline fitness.

2) Absolute fitness.

3) Relative fitness.

4) How both
can be measured.

5) Where both exist
within Hamilton's rule.


> > JE:-
> > I defined K as the Darwinian
> > fitness of the actor.


> NAS:-
> Right, so the baseline minus the cost, i.e.
> K = a – c
> where a is baseline fitness.

JE:-
Please define what this ghost baseline
fitness a is within the science of
biology. It remains pointless
continuing until you do so.

>snip<

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
ţ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/10/04 6:26:52 AM