"Perplexed in Peoria"  wrote:

> > JE:-
> > This is why absolute fitness cannot be _selected_
> > to be _reduced_. However, organism fitness altruism
> > (OFA) in nature can only be  measured when the
> > absolute fitness of the actor _is_ selected
> > to be reduced. Hamilton had to reverse cause an
> > effect to allow OFA but did not provide any
> > valid reason to be able to do so. [snip]

> JM:- 
> John, in the language you use here, YOU are reversing cause
> and effect.  (I think you understand perfectly well how
> natural selection works, but your language for describing it
> is backward.)

JE:-
I _absolutely_ disagree.

> JM:-
> NS neither reduces nor increases the absolute fitness of an
> actor (ie. of an individual). 

JE:-
I did NOT suggest what you wrote above
I suggested its absolute opposite.

I did _not_  suggest natural selection 
was causative "to the absolute fitness of an
actor (ie. of an individual)" I suggested
the exact opposite: absolute fitness is
causative to natural selection. Why?
Simply because a MINIMUM of TWO absolute
fitness totals have to be compared BEFORE
a relative fitness comparison can even eventuate.
This being the case: neither absolute fitness
total can be _selected_ to be _reduced_, yet
such an event is absolutely required to
prove organism fitness altruism.

>snip<

> JM:-
> Furthermore, you are dead wrong if you claim that genes
> for OFA, as Hamilton and modern sociobiologists define OFA,
> inevitably decrease the absolute fitness of the organisms
> that carry them.  If rb>c & r > 0, they _increase_ the absolute
> fitness of the organisms that carry them on average, as well as
> _increasing_ the average absolute fitness of the population as a
> whole.
  
JE:-
Then these genes are _proven_ to be fitness 
mutualistic and not fitness altruistic. They
CANNOT be just "fitness selfish" because a 
positive b (in absolute terms) has to be
handed over to recipient/recipients for
any evolution, at all, to take place. 
It is absurd for you or Hamilton et al to
argue that the rule need only measure a
unilateral gain/loss for a selective event
to be calculated. It takes two to tango
within the rule so that unilateral fitness
creates about the same level of resonance
for Hamilton's rule as one hand clapping
(to borrow a phase you have employed).

You refuse to reason that because Hamilton's 
rule cannot distinguish between a reduced 
positive  c and a negative c, but could do so 
if c was an abolute measure of fitness
and not just a relative measure of fitness
was being measured by the rule,
then no real difference exists between
relative and absolute measures within the rule 
as it stands! Thus you must forever make the same
gross error that the Neo Darwinian establishment 
have been making for over 50 years: incorrectly 
label a  positive relative fitness cost c 
as just a loss when it constituted a gain. 
If you were an accountant you would be sacked
for incompetence. The cost c did not produce 
a debit it produced a credit so the cost c
was not just a donation it was a proven mutualised 
investment. Can you imagine the consternation
of the tax department after you claimed a 
reduction for a supposed donation that produced 
an absolute gain for yourself on the same tax
return?

> JM:-
> Hamilton does not attempt to compete and win against Darwin.

JE:-
If this was the case then organism fitness altruism
would not be invoked by Hamilton as being caused by
genes forcing it at a _competing_ level of fitness,
would it? But it was  wasn't it?

> JM:-
> Hamilton simply corrects a subtle error that was made by
> Fisher and his contemporaries in their characterization of
> what properties of an organism are subject to selection.  It
> remains true that genes spread relatively in a population only
> if the carriers have higher relative fitnesses.  And it remains
> true that genes spread absolutely in a population only if the
> carriers have absolute fitnesses greater than the replacement
> value (2 for sexual populations). 

JE:-
Then BY SIMPLE DEDUCTION: organism
fitness altruism can only be proven 
when:

		rb>K

where:

K = the absolute fitness of the actor.

Do you agree or disagree?


> JM;-
> Contrary to what you seem
> to believe, neo-Darwinists do 
> not contest these truths.  

JE:-
No they do not contest them they simply
refuse to join them with any logic
which constitutes incompetence or bias.
I argue the latter because the former
leaves no hope. They wish to 
have their cake and eat it via
their misuse of the rule. Wishing to 
have it both ways only allows 
biological nonsense.

 
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 7/29/04 12:58:44 PM