"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> The Mad Hatter's Tea Party continues...
> 
> > > > > > Note that John Edser wrote:
> > > > > > 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.

Something like 'inclusive fitness benefit', perhaps? 
 
> 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.

No, c is subtracted from baseline fitness (call it K), and r b is
being added. The net effect is r b - c, so there has been a net
increase in inclusive fitness if r b > c; hence this is the condition
for when a social behaviour is favoured by selection.

> 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.

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. Their net reveals whether marginal
fitness is positive or negative, i.e. whether the trait is favoured or
disfavoured.

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

They are not variables, they are functions.  

dw/dx = r[x] b[x] - c[x] 

> > > > 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.

This just doesn't make sense, John.
  
>  This is not an ESS (evolutionary stable
>  strategy) because the actor becomes
>  sterile like. 

What?

> 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.

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.
---
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 8/6/04 6:19:27 AM