Name And Address Supplied wrote:-

> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > The biggest problem with the concept of "1" 
> > > > > > as relative fitness comparison maximum is that

> > > > >NAS:-
> > > > >1 is not the maximum; the average is 1

> > > > JE:-
> > > > The critical, exact, theoretical
> > > > Darwinian maximum is only represented
> > > > as just an average of 1 within this
> > > > simplified model. This model only exists
> > > > to help test the theory it was simplified
> > > > from. Attempting to _replace_ the theory
> > > > (any actual Darwinian maximum) with just
> > > > model approximation of it (the average 1)
> > > > is invalid.
 
> > > NAS:-
> > > 1 is not an approximation, it is exactly true, by definition.
> > > v = w/E[w] => E[v] = E[w]/E[w] = 1 

> > JE:-
> > Yes 1 "is exactly true, by DEFINITION."
> > [my capitalisation of "definition".]
> > HOWEVER, why did you omit that this
> > definition was just an over simplification
> > on a _non_ averaged measure derived from
> > the definition I had provided of what 
> > Darwinian fitness, within a _testable
> > theory_, actually is?

> 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.

> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > it may represent either a decreasing or increasing 
> > > > > > value re: just a _hidden absolute_ fitness measure. 
> > > > > > When this decreases, no matter what relative benefits
> > > > > > it provides to one party compared to another, 
> > > > > > it must move both parties towards extinction. Neo 
> > > > > > Darwinians cannot validly argue for ONLY a relative 
> > > > > > fitness increase within their oversimplified
population 
> > > > > > genetics models, e.g. Hamilton because it is
just logical
> > > > > > nonsense to do so. No rational evolutionary theory can 
> > > > > > allow extinction to be selected for. This is
why I have 
> > > > > > argued for over 4 years that:

> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > Extinction per se may be disfavoured by long term 
> > > > > selection, however
> > > > > it is quite possible for natural selection to drive 
> > > > > populations close
> > > > > to extinction.
 
> > > > JE:-
> > > > No, it is not "possible for natural selection 
> > > > to drive populations close to extinction" 
> > > > it is only possible for populations to
> > > > move close to extinction when the absolute
> > > > fitness of each member of that population
> > > > trends to a reduction under intense selection. 

> > > NAS:-
> > > To take the famous game theoretic example, [Hawks] can
> > > invade a population of Doves, and under some conditions the Hawk
> > > strategy is evolutionarily stable. The population of doves is
> > > absolutely fitter than the population of Hawks - this might manifest
> > > as a lower risk of population extinction.

[  NAS:- I just noticed a minor error: remove 
[ "population of Hawks" from 1st line and replace 
[ with "Hawk".]
 
> > JE:-
> > The same game theory does find a CRUDE 
> > point of  mutualisation. Surely you know 
> > what it was?

> NAS:"-
> I don't understand the question. Perhaps you could rephrase in more
> conventional terms?

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?

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

> > 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.


> > > > 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:-
> > > You seem to have neglected the possibility of frequency dependent
> > > selection. The Hawk / Dove example cannot be explained away with your
> > > simple characterisation of the problem. The population of Doves is
> > > quite viable, and indeed it is the ability (rather than inability) of
> > > Nature to produce the Hawk adaptation which is leading to the
> > > extinction threat.

> > 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.

> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > 1) An absolute fitness that is testable must be
> > > > > > identified within Neo Darwinism.

> > > > > NAS
> > > > > I agree.

> > > > JE:-
> > > > Would you like to venture a hypothesis
> > > > of such a fitness which can be tested 
> > > > to refutation within nature?

> > > NAS:-
> > > In general, no. But for a broad class of situations, relative fitness
> > > suffices.

> > 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?

> > 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.


> > JE:-
> > This is what Einstein taught the world. This 3rd 
> > defined fixed point provides the frame of reference.
> > In evolutionary theory this is a missing objective absolute
> > fitness that _does_ exist within Darwinism but remains
> > entirely _absent_ from Neo Darwinism. Tragically,
> > in their attempt to defend the indefensible Neo
> > Darwinians junked Popper and embraced post modernism
> > which can be summed up by their jingle:
> > "everything is relative". Everything is the sciences 
> > is not relative! Science is based on absolute assumptions
> > that are testable. For evolutionary theory, the only
> > absolute assumption that matters is ANY assumption
> > of absolute fitness that can be tested (can be
> > uniquely verified or refuted). The term "unique"
> > strictly applies to any other idea on the table 
> > and not just, any other idea.

>  NAS:-
> I do not follow.

JE:-
I do not have the time to
keep rewriting what I am 
arguing. The 
above was non ambiguous
non self contradictory
and self explanatory.
Please re read it and
provide a comment.

snip<
Requote:
--------------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 --------------------


_____________________________________________
> > > NAS:-
> > > Okay, here is my comment:
> > > If c is supposed to represent what 
> > > I think it means, i.e. the cost in
> > > Hamilton's rule, then it is neither 
> > > an absolute measure of fitness nor
> > > a relative measure of fitness, but 
> > > is rather a marginal fitness cost.
 
> > JE:-
> > Exactly WHAT is "a marginal fitness cost"
> > and how can it differ to BOTH a relative 
> > AND absolute fitness cost?

_______________________________________________

Please provide answer the CRITICAL unanswered 
question in  the box above.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 66
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 7/22/04 12:20:00 PM