"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:cd96hb$1ikf$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> Jim Menegay{at}sbcglobal.net>
> JE:-
> EITHER you agree with Dr O'Hara
> or you do not agree:
>
> --------------quote----------------------
>
> 1) 22/01/2004:
>
> JE:-
> What is the difference between
> a reduced positive c and a negative c?
> If c was an abolute measure of fitness
> then yes, a real difference exists. However
> c is only a relative fitness cost and not
> an absolute fitness cost, so what is the
> difference?
>
> BOH:-
>
> As far as the rule is concerned, none.
>
> ----------- end quote --------------------
>
> Do you agree or disagree that:
> "As far as the rule is concerned, none"?

Short answer: I agree.  (Longer answer below).

> If you agree do you _fully_ understand the
> logical consequences of such an agreement?

Oh yes!  The consequence is that when I finally realize that
further conversation with you is useless, I will receive the
same abuse that you are currently dumping on Dr. O'Hara.
I _fully_ understand the consequences.  ;-)

Longer answer:  I agree with Dr O'Hara's answer only to the
extent that it is the answer to the question as I interpreted
it in my earlier post.  Dr O'Hara has said that my interpretation
is the way he understood the question, and you have said that
my interpretation is the way you meant the question.  However,
I have to disagree.  My interpretation IS NOT the way you
meant the question.  My words may be a correct translation of
your words, but my meaning does not match your meaning.  Among
other things, your understanding of what "c" represents in
Hamilton's rule is different from mine.  Hence, the question
being asked IS NOT the question that is being answered.

It is completely obvious that your understanding of "c" is
different from mine and BOH's.  First clue - that the question
is asked at all.  There was no need for you to even ask the
question if it meant what BOH interpreted it to mean.  The
answer is obvious.  Second clue - that word "reduced" in the
question.  There is no sense in which c (as I understand
it) is "reduced".  The fact that you inserted that word, and
continue to use it in discussions of the topic, indicates that
you have a different meaning in mind.  Third clue: "If c was
an abolute measure of fitness then yes, a real difference exists."
No it doesn't, as BOH and I interpreted the question.  Our
answer flows directly from the simple algebraic structure of the
rule "rb>c".  The same answer would be correct regardless of
what c meant and regardless or whether the rule was biologically
correct or something from geology or pure nonsense.

Ok, I have presented a hypothesis.  Now, according to Edserian
epistemology, I should provide an experiment to refute that
hypothesis.  Here is that experiment:  I will present a simple
set of made-up biological observations which should, as I
understand it, enable the calculation of r, b, and c.  You
and BOH (should he agree to participate) and anyone else who
wishes to participate will email to me what you think r, b, and c
are in this situation, or else your reasons why you believe that
the data are insufficient to determine these parameters.  As
a control, I will email my own answers to our esteemed
moderator prior to receiving your response.  After receiving
and assembling everyone's answer, I will publish them to sbe so
they can be compared.

Do you John, (and you BOH), agree to participate in this
experiment?  My hypothesis is refuted if you, I, and BOH
turn out to be in substantial agreement on the value of
c, and/or the impossibility of determining it from my data.

> > > JE:-
> > > Hamilton's rule _cannot_ measure when an ALTRUISTIC
> > > gene spreads because it cannot discriminate between
> > > just a phoney altruistic gene that actually provides
> > > a mutual benefit which _can_ be selected using
> > > a normal Darwinian fitness (exactly as I had
> > > defined it in box 1 in a previous thread) and
> > > a real altruistic gene that provides an absolute
> > > fitness loss to the actor which _cannot_ be selected
> > > for using Darwinian fitness (it _required_ the
> > > inclusive fitness definition provided by Hamilton
> > > et al).
>
> > JM:-
> > I think I see the possibility of a light at the end
> > of a long tunnel.
> > Edser distinguishes between "phoney altruism" (that can
> > be selected FOR using a normal Darwinian fitness)
> > and "real altruism" (that provides an absolute
> > fitness loss to the actor, and is selected AGAINST).
>
> JE:-
> Isn't it just obvious that unless Hamilton
> provides a way within his rule to measure such
> a difference the rule cannot be validly used to
> suggest that an *ALTRUISTIC* gene has
> relatively spread because that gene
> may have been MUTUALISTIC?

Nope.  But you know, John, this is maybe the first time you
have claimed that something is "obvious" when I have to
agree that it is plausible.  Plausible, but wrong.

> > JM:-
> > Hamilton's rule creates an explicit distinction between
> > altruistic behaviors with rb>c (which are selected for)
> > and altruistic behaviors with rb > against).
>
> JE:-
> Hamilton's rule CANNOT provide "an explicit distinction
> between altruistic behaviors with rb>c (which are selected for)
> and altruistic behaviors with rb against" UNLESS a new general term is included within the
> rule that represents the proposed Darwinian fitness
> of the actor.

It can and does.

> > JM.
> > Is it possible that JE and Hamilton are
> > making the same distinction, only using different words
> > to describe it?  Of course it is.

[snip exchange that John found "needlessly insulting".]
[snip epistemology]
> JE:
> [I have] CORRECTLY defined organism fitness altruism
> as selection FOR an _absolute reduction_
> and not just a relative reduction in
> Darwinian fitness (as I have defined it
> and have demonstrated that this definition
> was always implicit within Darwin's writing).

I interpret this as further evidence of my hypothesis that
John is interpreting c differently than BOH and I are
interpreting it.  But we really need an experimental test
of that hypothesis.
----------------
> > JM:-
> > I would propose that this discussion ought to procede by
> > considering the logical relationship among the following
> > three statements:
> >
> > Axiom 1. [No gene-level selection] A gene spreads in a
> > population only if organism-level carriers of that gene
> > have (on average) higher Darwinian fitness (by John's
> > definition) than non-carriers.
> >
> > Axiom 2. [No classical group selection] Differences in
> > rates of group extinction and group "reproduction" are
> > completely insignificant as causes of differences in
> > the Darwinnian fitness of organisms.
> >
> > Theorem 1. [Hamilton] Under certain circumstances (rb>c)
> > it is possible for a gene to spread in a population,
> > when the effect of the gene is to cause its carriers to act
> > altruistically (at cost to their own Darwinian fitness,
> > but at benefit to the Darwinnian fitnesses of the fortunate
> > beneficiaries of the action).
>
> JE:-
> Axiom 1: True.  Hamilton et al cannot MEASURE when an
> ACTUAL altruistic gene was responsible for ANY gene
> that just RELATIVELY spreads (only increases its
> freq. compared to another in the same population).
>
> Axiom 2: Not true. You have incorrectly
> identified classical group selection.

Actually, I don't need this axiom to prove the theorem.
I only suggested it as a "nothing up my sleeve" kind
of promise that I would prove the theorem without
invoking group selection.  We can delete this axiom,
or else substitute another that John suggests.

> Theorem 1: Not true. An absolute reduction
> in fitness cannot be selected FOR. All
> theorem 1 measures is a reduction in just
> the RELATIVE fitness of the actor. This
> measure CANNOT discriminate between real
> and just phoney altruism because Axiom 1
> remains true.

Of course, as anyone who followed my debate with
Dr. Hoelzer will know, I am not claiming that
an absolute reduction in fitness will be selected
for.  I am claiming that genes whose direct effect
on the bearer is to reduce absolute fitness will
be selected for.  That "direct effect" thing is
crucial.  The genes will spread due to compensating
indirect effects that increase the absolute fitness
of the bearer.  (And, John, if you respond here that
those "indirect effects" should be included in c,
making it mutualistic, then you have just proved my
hypothesis above, and we can skip the experiment.)

Hmmm.  How about if I define gene "spread" to mean to
increase in frequency in a population which is
steady or expanding?  I don't intend to prove the
theorem by forcing the population to shrink.

It will be most convenient for me to prove my
theorem after we run the experiment to test my
"misinterpretation" hypothesis.  In fact, the proof
pretty much falls out of that experiment.
---
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 7/17/04 9:36:12 PM