"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:cdgpuo$108m$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
I am beginning to feel like Alice in Wonderland here ...

> > > > > JE:
> > > > > ___________________________________________________
> > > > > Box A
> > > > > IF the rule cannot MEASURE any difference
> > > > > between "a positive c (i.e. a
> > > > > decrease in absolute fitness, indicating altruism)
> > > > > and a negative c (i.e. an increase in absolute
> > > > > fitness, indicating mutualism)" THEN the rule
> > > > > is MISUSED when it is employed to measure
> > > > > when organism fitness altruism (OFA) can evolve.
> > > > > __________________________________________________

It sure seems to me that Edser is demanding the measurement of
the difference between two different "c"s, a positive one, and
a negative one.  Sounded weird to me, so to clarify this, I wrote:

> > > > JM:-
> > > > A1 = absolute fitness of an organism
> > > > if it acts altruistically
> > > > A2 = absolute fitness of that organism
> > > > if it does not act altruistically
> > > > c1 (the positive c) = A2 - A1
> > > > A3 = absolute fitness of a (different?)
> > > > organism if it acts mutualistically-
> > > > A4 = absolute fitness of that organism if
> > > > it does not act mutualistically
> > > > c2 = (the negative c) A4 - A3
> > > > D (the difference that MUST(?) be measured) = c1 - c2
> > > >   = A2 - A1 - A4 + A3

> > > > Do I have that right, John?  You claim that it is clear
that if this
> > > > quantity D cannot be MEASURED by a rule, then the rule
is biologically
> > > > meaningless.  Hmmm.  I suspect you are wrong, John.  It
is NOT clear,
> > > > at least not to me.  Perhaps you can clarify.

And John did apparently clarify:

> > > JE:-
> > > Hamilton's rule is about the evolution
> > > of fitness associations. Only TWO selectable
> > > associations exist within the rule and not
> > > the 4 (A1 to A4) you have described. [snip]

And, I thought that I had acknowleged this:

> > JM:-
> > I fully agree (assuming that I understand what you mean by
> > "fitness associations").  Each "c"
constitutes a measurement
> > of the difference between two fitness associations.  That
> > measurement is made by the investigator (outside the rule),
> > and then is plugged into the rule to get an answer to the
> > question as to which of the two fitness associations will be
> > selected.

But John apparently didn't recognize the acknowlegement:

> JE:-
> The main pivot of my previous reply
> appears not to have been answered
> within this answer to it.
> The main thrust of your previous
> argument seemed to be based on
> your assumption that 4 onditions
> exist within the rule allowing two
> valid c, costs. Do you now agree or
> disagree  that only two conditions
> (A1 and A2) exist within Hamilton's
> rule allowing just one valid cost, c?

I completely agree, John.  One "c", two fitness associations
in Hamilton's rule.  The logical next step seems to be
that you will reword whatever it was that you were trying to
say in Box A, so that it no longer seems to require the
subtraction of two different "c"s.  In fact, I have already
said this.

> > JM:-
> > And that is why I was so surprised that you insisted that
> > the rule has to be able to _measure_ the difference between
> > two different "c"s - which seems to suggest that there
are somehow
> > four different fitness associations involved.

But Edser answers:

> JE:-
> Two different VALUES of c remain witin
> the rule.

Whoops.  Somehow we are back to two "c"s again.  And John
emphasizes that these are two different values of c.  As I
understand the word "value", this indicates that he is talking
about "c"s calculated using the same definitions and methodologies,
but in two different situations.  He is not, as I understand
"value", talking about two different definitions of "c".

> These are: ABSOLUTE and RELATIVE values
> of c and NOT just "positive" and "negative" values
> of c.

Whoops.  I was apparently wrong again.  John really meant two
different DEFINITIONS of "c".  And somehow that old
absolute/relative issue has cropped up again.  I had been
thinking that I had already accepted John's preference to stick
to absolute fitnesses.  Perhaps he has forgotten that, since
he is involved in other threads where people are less willing
to accept John's preference for the absolute.

> Hamilton's employment of just the mathematical
> signs (+) and (-) to separate OFA and OFM
> does _not_ separate the absolute measure
> of fitness from just a relative measure
> of it. This remains my most important point.

John, I realize that the absolute/relative thing is central to
your thinking and to your critique of neo-Darwinism.  I will
perhaps discuss this issue with you someday, but not today.
On this thread, we are both agreeing to use only absolute
fitnesses and absolute fitness differences.

And, regardless of whether it is your most important point,
it very clearly was not the point you were making in Box A.
There you were talking about (+) and (-).

[snip some discussion that appears to me to be not relevant
 to the interpretation  of Box A.]

> JE:-
> No confusion exists here.

Oh really?  Seems to me there is MASSIVE confusion.

> ONLY TWO fitness associations
> are attempted to be measured within Hamilton's rule
> (A1 and A2) requiring just a single value of just one
> cost, c (not the FOUR fitness associations that
> you have suggested requiring two and not just one, c).

Agreed.  Though I am not the one who brought up the subject of
two "c"s.  You did, in Box A.  But we'll let that pass.

> These TWO fitness associations defined by the rule
> are:
>
> 1) Mutualism: measured as true in every case of +c
> 2) Altruism : measured as true in every case of -c

Huh?????????

First of all, I hope that the (+) for mutualism and the
(-) for altruism is a typo.  What John writes here is
exactly the opposite of what has been the sign convention
up until now.

Second, the definition of a fitness association seems to
be changing here.  I thought (and John confirms just
a few paragraphs back) that my A1 and A2 are the two
relevant fitness associations.  Neither has anything to
do with mutualism.

> In the rule 1) CAN be varified BUT 2) CANNOT
> BE VARIFIED. Every measure of +c could also
> be MUTUALISM with just _one_ exception: when
> c = cmax where the actor becomes the eqivalent
> of just a sterile form.

I'm guessing that the (+) here is not a typo.  So, I'm
guessing that what he is saying is that a positive c,
which Hamilton would call altruism, might actually
be what Edser would call mutualism.  (Except when the
"altruist" is sacrificing ALL of its fitness.  John
does not call this mutualism).

Hmmm.  Do I agree with this?

YES! YES! A THOUSAND TIMES YES!!!!!

When Edser talks about altruism and mutualism, he is talking
about something completely different than what a neo-Darwinist
is talking about when those words are used.  As a result,
when a neo-Darwinist makes a statement about altruism with
the neo-Darwinist meaning in mind, Edser interprets it as
a statement made using Edser's definition of altruism.  And,
not surprisingly, the statement appears to Edser to be total
nonsense.

But back to Box A.  I continue to find it incomprehensible.
I would suggest, John, that you either withdraw it, or reword it.
---
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 7/19/04 10:19:14 PM