"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:ceb6ce$rvi$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
>
>
>  "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.

I certainly cannot disagree with your statement that
absolute fitness is causative.  My complaint was that
the language "selected to be reduced" seems to suggest
that selection is causing the reduction.  But I accept
your clarification that this is not what you intend.

> 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_,

I think that I agree, though I dislike the language used.

> yet such an event is absolutely required to
> prove organism fitness altruism.

Disagree, if we use my definition of "altruism", which I
think is the standard one.

> >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.

Hmmm.  Are you making a distinction between "fitness altruistic"
and "altruistic"?  If not, then I can only interpret this as
something like "These genes may 'appear' altruistic as long
as we are wearing blinders.  But once we remove the blinders
we can see that they were really mutualistic after all."

If what you are saying is roughly as I have interpreted it,
then, once again, I would have to say that you are employing
different definitions than everyone else.  A neo-Darwinist
doesn't change his mind about whether a behavior is "altruistic"
after he removes his "blinders".  Instead, he says, "Ah ha!
This is one of those rare altruistic behaviors that Hamilton
told us about - and altruistic behavior that actually is
favored by natural selection."

> 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).

I can see how you might be incredulous about this.  But,
surprising as it may seem, it does work.  By simple symmetry,
carriers of altruistic genes receive back some of the benefits
that they produce for others.  There is some wastage of these
benefits - a lot of them flow to the general population; i.e.
to competitors.  However, enough of them (measured by "r") do
feed back to make altruism a winning proposition if rb>c.

> 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!

I still don't understand why you are saying that the positive
c is "reduced".  Also, I don't see how the absolute/relative
issue comes in here.

My position is that a distinction can be trivially made between
positive and negative values of c, regardless of whether c is
an absolute or relative fitness cost.  However, that distinction
is not made _by_ the rule, again regardless of absolute or relative.

> 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?

There is no explanation for what bureaucrats express consternation
about.  However, in this case there is no reason for them to be
"consterned".  Suppose I donate $80,000 to my local charity, and
in exchange, they give me a job paying $100,000.  I have an absolute
gain of $20,000.  Under American tax rules, this is exactly the
net income I would be taxed upon, though I would have to pay FICA
taxes on the whole $100,000.

> > 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?

If the "competing level" that you are talking about is the
gene level, then I am not sure that Hamilton ever invoked it.
Certainly he did not in 1964, except possibly as another way
of looking at his organism-level results.  Similarly, his
1970 and 1976 descriptions of kin selection as a group level
phenomenon are also cases of offering alternative levels of
explanation, rather than competing levels of fitness.

> > 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?

I continue to disagree.  Rather than repeatedly telling me
that the deduction is simple, and asking whether I agree with
it, how about showing me the deduction so that I can see for
myself?

The only way that "rb>K" makes any sense to me is if you are
assuming that c=K; that is, that the altruist is sacrificing
its life before having any children.  Is that what you are
assuming here?

[snip]
---
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 7/30/04 6:07:01 AM