> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > .. my point is simply that absolute
> > > > > offspring number is not the appropriate maximand.
> > > > > The appropriate measure is relative.

> > > > JE;-
> > > > The maximisation of just a relative fitness
> > > > measure remains a logical impossibility unless an
> > > > an absolute fitness measure is maximised, firstly.

> > > NAS:-
> > > That is incorrect. The maximum relative fitness does not necessarily
> > > coincide with the maximum absolute fitness, i.e. one evolutionary
> > > strategy might maximise one and not the other. To decide which
> > > strategy is favoured by natural selection, we need to choose between
> > > the relative or absolute fitness maximand. And the relative fitness
> > > maximand is the one that delivers the correct answer.

> > JE:-
> > I will argue that you not correct where
> > such a basic difference does allow a test.
> > Using such a test, either your view or my
> > view must will stand refuted. Do you agree
> > that this is the case?

> NAS:-
> If I understand you correctly, then yes, I agree. And that was exactly
> my point (above).

JE:-
Please outline your test.


> > > > JE:-
> > > > The sentence and question
> > > > remain rational and unambiguous.
> > > > What do you claim not to understand
> > > > now? Is it "mutualisation"? Why does
> > > > this simple term remain a mystery
> > > > to you when it was dealt with
> > > > by Hamilton's rule as any case
> > > > of -c?

> > > NAS:-
> > > "mutualisation" is not a standard term in social
evolution theory. I
> > > suppose you are trying to say something about
"mutualism", but clearly
> > > you are referring to a process ("-ation" suffix),
whereas "mutualism"
> > > is simply a way of describing a matrix of costs and benefits.
=
> > JE:-
> > It is nonsense for NAS to suggest that
> > "mutualisation is not a standard term" because
> > it remains employed (but just soundly ignored!)
> > by Hamilton et al within Hamilton's rule.
> > This rule attempts to measure
> > fitness changes via an _association_ between
> > a single actor and recipient/recipients. It
> > is IMPOSSIBLE to measure when any association
> > can evolve by only measuring _unilateral_ gains,
> > i.e. gains/losses to just the actor OR the
> > recipient. At all times, the fitness being
> > measured by Hamilton et al is _not_ unilateral.
> >
> > ___________________________________________
> > Definition:
> > Mutualisation within Hamilton's rule is the
> > process whereby both the recipient and the
> > actor make a fitness gain.
> > ___________________________________________
> >
> > For this gain to be REAL it has to be
> > a measured ABSOLUTE gain, i.e. the
> > gain must constitute a total of
> > some kind that allows a net result
> > and not just a gross result,
> > to be calculated. Do you agree?

> NAS:-
> You could have spared yourself such a long answer if you had only just
> read what I had written. I am well aware of what "mutualism" is. I was
> merely confused by the strange term "mutualisation" - again, see
> above.

JE:-
It appears mutualisation, which obviously
only means "to make mutual", is spelt with
a "z": mutualization.

To save time please be exact in what you ask.
If you are challenging the validity of the
word "mutualisation" then just say so.

Do you agree or disagree with:
___________________________________________
Definition:
Mutualisation within Hamilton's rule is the
process whereby both the recipient and the
actor make a fitness gain.
___________________________________________



> > > > JE:-
> > > > Surely you know what this evolved
> > > > game theory strategy was? It reduced
> > > > risk and hence mutually increases
> > > > (but not necessarily equally
> > > > increases) fitness.

> > > NAS:-
> > > John, you'd save alot of your time and mine if you just got to the
> > > point, say what you have to say, rather than have me guessing.

> > JE:-
> > You brought this up and not me.
> > Hamilton et al deal in the evolution
> > of fitness _associations_.
> > Any association is a form of co-operation
> > where this may provide negative or positive
> > outcomes for those involved.
> > _____________________________________________
> > Co-operation within and between species
> > has generated only _one_ Evolutionary Stable
> > Strategy. Please tell sbe reader's  what
> > you think it is.
> > _____________________________________________

> NAS:
> John, we were talking about Hawks and Doves, not mutualisms.

JE:-
Your assumption that both "Hawks and Doves"
are not fitness mutualistic is not correct, that
is (rather obviously) why I asked it.
The question I asked remains valid.
Please answer the question in the box (above).


> > > > > > JE;-
> > > > > > However, the above is just a simplified_model_. Such
> > > > > > a model does _not_ constitute a documented observation
> > > > > > of nature and therefore cannot replace such
> > > > > > a documented example. The only valid usage of such a
> > > > > > model is to help prepare a biological experiment
> > > > > > to test the theory the model was derived
> > > > > > from via the process of modelling simplification.
>
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > The model provides a hypothetical counter example to your
> > > > > claim. There
> > > > > is no theoretical reason why the model behaviour could
> > > > > not be played
> > > > > out in nature. So there is no theoretical basis to
your claim.

> > > > JE:-
> > > > A "hypothetical counter example" to my
"claim"?
> > > > From what I have read you do not demonstrate
> > > > any understanding of what my claim actually is.
> > > > To remove any confusion please write or quote what
> > > > you understand my claim to be.

> > > NAS:-
> > > Essentially, that absolute offspring number is the appropriate
> > > maximand. I disagree.

> > JE:-
> > So there is no confusion, this absolute assumption is
> > defined as the total number of fertile forms reproduced
> > into one population by each parent, i.e. it is represented
> > by a testable numerical total that once created remains fixed
> > for  all time within biological history.
> > To avoid confusion, please explain what your
> > "hypothetical counter example" was and how
> > it differed to my claim.

> NAS:-
> Stemming from our discussion about the appropriate maximand was your
> claim that natural selection could not cause a population to move
> towards extinction. I provided the example of the Hawk invading the
> healthy Dove population. A population of Hawks is much worse off than
> a population of Doves.
> It clearly shows that the Hawk strategy can, through natural
> selection, jeopardise the health of the population. Only relative
> fitness matters - the Hawk is relatively fitter than the Dove in a
> population with a mixture of the two, even if the Hawk in a population
> of mostly Hawks is absolutely less fit than the Dove in a population
> of mostly Doves.

JE:-
You are not distinguishing between an oscillation and
a trend. As a simple example, if you plot the
return for investing in the share market then it has
absolutely risen over time. This means the returns
have trended up even though oscillations in both directions
do exist. A regression analysis only produces a
line pointing upwards and not downwards. If this
was not the case our economy would have become extinct
long ago and we would not have the computers required to
have this discussion.

My argument is: because Neo Darwinism does not include
any _definitive_ absolute fitness measure within any of
their arguments (I will argue that the Hawk and Dove
SIMPLIFIED MODEL does contain a DELETED absolute measure)
they are only measuring oscillations and not trends
so no definitive result exists making Neo Darwinism
non testable against nature.


> > > > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > > > Note that just a relative fitness comparison
> > > > > > > > can still produce evolution via
natural selection
> > > > > > > > even as a population keeps on shrinking.
> > > > > > > > Unless this relative fitness
(comparison) selection
> > > > > > > > can keep up (at least make up the
consistent absolute
> > > > > > > > loss) the population must move to
extinction. The
> > > > > > > > logic is very simple. It is not
possible for an absolute
> > > > > > > > fitness _reduction_ to be selected
_for_ but it is entirely
> > > > > > > > possible for every member of one
population to fail
> > > > > > > > to adapt quickly enough even under
intense selective
> > > > > > > > pressure. Nature is not perfect so
she cannot always
> > > > > > > > produce adaptations quickly enough
under intense
> > > > > > > > selective pressure, producing extinction.

> > > NAS:-
> > > This is nonsense. What if the population size is not wholly influenced
> > > by the trait in question? What if the population is only momentarily
> > > decreasing in size, and will later start increasing again?

> > JE:-
> > You do not understand the implications of
> > an absolute fitness (as defined above).
> > The fitness of traits coded by genomic genes are
> > epistatic to just _one_ fitness level within
> > this theory. Do you know what this proposed single
> > level of fitness is? AFAICS you incorrectly thought I
> > was only supplying  an over simplified MODEL. Such a
> > model would be utterly misused if it suggested
> > that at all times, within nature, the population
> > size "is wholly influenced by the trait in question".

> NAS:-
> It is a simple model, but it does provide a counter to your claims.

JE:-
Yes it is just "a simple model" but no,
it does _not_ "provide a counter" to
my claims. This is because the simplification
process INVALIDLY deleted Darwinian fitness from
the model which represented a TOTAL FITNESS, i.e. a
definitive and thus testable, absolute fitness
assumption. Without an objective absolute fitness
assumption relative fitness can only measure
oscillations and not trends (as explained above).


> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > I have not "neglected the possibility of
> > > > > > frequency dependent selection", I suggest
> > > > > > it evolves to a point of fitness mutualisation.
> > > > > > Predator and their prey populations _can_ reach
> > > > > > a point of fitness mutualisation which can
> > > > > > evolve to become more and more efficient.
> > > > > > Here Van Valen's Red Queen war is replaced
> > > > > > by fitness mutualisation because it is more
> > > > > > effective and a lot cheaper for all concerned.
> > > > > > Only here can the absolute Darwinian fitness
> > > > > > of ALL increase without the massive
> > > > > > investment required by spiralling
> > > > > > offence/defence costs that Van Valen's
> > > > > > logic requires.

> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > Your sudden switch to interspecific interactions is somewhat
> > > > > confusing.

> > > > JE:-
> > > > Why is that? Prey/Prey, Prey/Predator and
> > > > Predator/Predator fitness relationships
> > > > must all evolve together in the real world.

> > > NAS:-
> > > Indeed, but we were discussing an intraspecific example, an example
> > > which I had proposed to illustrate a flaw in your reasoning.

JE:-
> > For Darwinian theory where species are not
> > a valid absolute assumption, it makes
> > little difference because the logic remains
> > the same. So there is no confusion, please
> > quote or restate what my reasoning was
> > and then present your intraspecific example
> > that illustrates "a flaw" in that reasoning.

> NAS:-
> I'm struggling to see what logic was behind your claim that natural
> selection could not push a population towards extinction, by reducing
> its absolute fitness,

JE:-
Simply because, at no time can an _absolute_
fitness reduction be _selected for_, i.e.
it can eventuate but not be _selected for_.

NAS:-
> ..but that is precisely what you stated, and that
> is what the Hawk-Dove game disproves by counter example.

JE:-
Incorrect (see above)

> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > I find it amazing that you freely admit that
> > > > > > "an absolute fitness that is testable should be
> > > > > > identified within Neo Darwinism", yet you
> > > > > > flatly decline to attempt to provide one! You
> > > > > > just end up withdrawing into a WW1 trench
> > > > > > by suggesting that "for a broad class of
> > > > > > situations, relative fitness suffices".

> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > Apologies, I made a mistake. I mis-read
"absolute fitness" for
> > > > > "general measure of fitness" or
something equivalent. So I do not
> > > > > agree with your point 1.

> > > > JE:-
> > > > So, what now is the _point_ of this discussion?

> > > NAS:-
> > > The appropriate maximand.

> > JE:-
> > Please provide an unambiguous
> > definition of it.

> NAS:-
> My position is that yours is incorrect, not that I know exactly what
> the correct maximand is.

JE:-
Can't you see that your proposition above
is just absurd on both a relative and absolute
level?

1) On just a relative level: I have proposed
a fully testable definition of absolute
fitness and proven it is the only absolute
assumption that exists within evolutionary
theory, where this assumption was always
implicit within Darwinism. You have not
supplied any absolute fitness. So, on just
a comparative basis you have nothing at all
to challenge what I have provided.

2) On the more important absolute level:
You deny that an absolute fitness is even
required. In principle, your position
remains absurd. In effect you are suggesting
that no testable point of reference needs
to exist within Neo Darwinism for any
comparative (relative) measure, which is
absurd.

> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > Logically, it remains untrue that "for a
> > > > > > broad class of situations, relative fitness
suffices".
> > > > > > Unless a defined 3rd fixed point of reference exists,
> > > > > > just measuring a relative difference means nothing.

> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > The question should provide the appropriate reference point.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Yes it should but it doesn't, does it.
> > > > Please provide an example.

> > > NAS:-
> > > The reference is provided by the question. Contrast "how does an
> > > allele's frequency change in a population" with
"how does a species
> > > abundance change in a community". The key references
are "population"
> > > and "community" respectively. An allele might
increase even though it
> > > causes an absolute decline in population size - but if we are
> > > answering the first of the two questions, we do not care about the
> > > decline of the population size, since the allele's frequency is
> > > measured within the population.

> > JE:-
> > You have failed to distinguish between just a simplified
> > model and the theory it was simplified from. This provides
> > a real danger that you may allow just an over simplified
> > model to invalidly  compete and win against the theory
> > from which is was simplified/over simplified which I am
> > sure you would agree would be an absurdity.
> > How an allele's frequency changes in a population
> > and how a species abundance changes in a community
> > can only be explained using a testable theory. Please
> > provide or just acknowledge, such a theory.

> NAS:-
> MOre on this later . . . I have to run.

JE:-
Are you running away from
something  or towards
something :-)

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
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 7/26/04 4:00:45 PM