"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:cf840q$14n6$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> Since rb is just a model but c
> represents a part of a testable
> fitness definition of Darwinian
> fitness, the only proper procedure
> is to propose rb as a cost to
> Darwinian fitness. This Hamilton et al
> cannot do because they have no conception
> of what a Darwinian fitness is.

John, this makes absolutely no sense.  I can only assume that
you have gotten signs confused in your mind.  There is no
sense in which anyone but yourself (and perhaps an Enron
accountant) could call rb a cost.  Furthermore, the Peshwari
example was specifically constructed to illustrate how
Hamilton's rule can be applied using what you call "Darwinian
fitness".

To use your terminology, Hamilton suggests that rb is an
indirect return on investment.  When Hamilton's rule is
being justified at the gene level, it can be interpreted
as a return accruing to another subsidiary of the same
company.  However, when Hamilton's rule is being justified
at the individual organism level, the sense in which rb
can be characterized as a return on investment is more
subtle, but also more easily reconciled with GAAP.

However, regardless how you account for rb in your accounting
rules, it is definitely the case that organisms that carry the
hypothetical gene for altruism will raise more offspring
to maturity than organisms that do not carry this gene.
If this seems paradoxical to you, please refer to the
discussion on the thread "Experiment - Peshwari cat and
Peshwari pig".  Pay particular attention to the case of
the pig, because I suspect that you will be tempted to
explain the cat away as "mutualistic" rather than "altruistic".
---
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 8/10/04 6:26:51 AM