> > JE:-
> > What I am arguing here is that Hamilton's logic can only work
> > when the cost c remains _negative_ (in strictly Darwinian 
> > fitness terms). This means that at all times, organism fitness 
> > mutualism (OFM) and not organism fitness altruism (OFA) is
> > operating in ALL valid cases of Hamilton's rule, no exceptions. 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > So that I am not misunderstood: all positive cases of c,
> > within the rule are invalid. This is because
> > all positive values of c remain  _ambiguous_ re: the 
> > measuring OFA and OFM, as Dr O'Hara has reluctantly agreed.
> > It is this point of logical ambiguity that nobody wishes to 
> > discuss, not even Dr O'Hara who agrees that it does exist.
> > ____________________________________________________________


< BOH:- 
> John, please don't put words into my mouth.  There is (in my mind at 
> least) no ambiguity - a positive c is a positive c so that the behaviour 
> under study is altruistic (this follows directly from the technical 
> definition of altriusm).  Whether this behviour will invade a population 
> is determined by Hamilton's rule.

JE:-
If you wish to retract your reply below, 
then please do so, _explicity_:

--------------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 ------------------

JE:-
A logical consequence of your 
comment is to acknowledge:-

1) The gene can only be said to 
invade the population on just 
a _relative_ basis, i.e. as the gene 
invades the population on only this 
basis it can force both genes to
extinction.

2) The ambiguity that exists within
the rule applies to a SIGNIFICANT
BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE in fitness
measure: an absolute fitness cost c 
and just a relative fitness cost c. 

3) No rational theory of evolution can 
be based on just a relative fitness
measure.

4) Hamilton's model is just a model
of Darwinian fitness. It invalidly 
deleted the absolute fitness measure 
that (implicitly) exists within 
Darwinism allowing just a heuristic
gene centric model to compete and win
against the theory it was simplified
from.


> BOH:-
> Please remember that I also claim that Hamilton's rule was never 
> designed to distinguish altruism from mutualism, which is where you're 
> claiming the ambiguity is.  

JE:-
Then do you agree with me that the
rule was utterly misused to support
OFA after classical group selection
failed to be able to support OFA?


BOH:-
> This ambiguity is irrelvant to the use of 
> Hamilton's rule, as we only need to measure r, b, 
> and c (including their 
> signs!) to be able to use it.

JE:-
So it does not matter at all that
the only logic supporting OFA 
within evolutionary theory worldwide
is just Hamilton's rule of thumb which
cannot discriminate  between a 
relative fitness cost and an absolute 
fitness cost for any supposed altruist?


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 7/20/04 5:07:59 PM