Jim Menegay wrote:-

> > > > > JM:-
> > > > > My interpretation is that he thought you asked:
"Does the
> > > > > rule discriminate between altruism and mutualism?  That
> > > > > is, is there some hidden mechanism in the rule that
> > > > > "notices" a difference between a
positive c (i.e. a
> > > > > decrease in absolute fitness, indicating altruism)
> > > > > and a negative c (i.e. an increase in absolute
> > > > > fitness, indicating mutualism)?"
> > > > > My interpretation is that he answered: "No, there
> > > > > is no discrimination between these two situations
> > > > > within the rule.  The rule handles both cases without
> > > > > discriminating.

> > > > JE:-
> > > > The rule must do much more than just "notice",
> > > > "a difference between a positive c (i.e. a
> > > > decrease in absolute fitness, indicating altruism)
> > > > and a negative c (i.e. an increase in absolute
> > > > fitness, indicating mutualism)" it must be
> > > > able to _measure_ a difference between them.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Here is my main proposition:
> > > > ___________________________________________________
> > > > Box A
> > > > IF the rule cannot MEASURE any difference
> > > > between "a positive c (i.e. a
> > > > decrease in absolute fitness, indicating altruism)
> > > > and a negative c (i.e. an increase in absolute
> > > > fitness, indicating mutualism)" THEN the rule
> > > > is MISUSED when it is employed to measure
> > > > when organism fitness altruism (OFA) can evolve.
> > > > __________________________________________________

> > > JM:-
> > > A1 = absolute fitness of an organism
> > > if it acts altruistically

> > JE:-
> > OK, as long as A1 is defined as: the
> > total fitness count of a Hamiltonian
> > organism ACTOR which is measured as a
> > total of fertile organisms reproduced
> > into the one, same, population.

> JM:-
> That is OK with me. Same goes, of course, for A2, A3, and A4.

JE:-
But A3 and A4 were never required.

> > > JM:- (with repetition for clarity)
> > > A1 = absolute fitness of an organism
> > > if it acts altruistically
> > > A2 = absolute fitness of that organism
> > > if it does not act altruistically
> > > c1 (the positive c) = A2 - A1
> > > A3 = absolute fitness of a (different?)
> > > organism if it acts mutualistically-
> > > A4 = absolute fitness of that organism if
> > > it does not act mutualistically
> > > c2 = (the negative c) A4 - A3

> > JE:-
> > Hamilton's rule is about the evolution
> > of fitness associations. Only TWO selectable
> > associations exist within the rule and not
> > the 4 (A1 to A4) you have described. [snip]

> JM:-
> I fully agree (assuming that I understand what you mean by
> "fitness associations").  Each "c" constitutes a measurement
> of the difference between two fitness associations.  That
> measurement is made by the investigator (outside the rule),
> and then is plugged into the rule to get an answer to the
> question as to which of the two fitness associations will be
> selected.

JE:-
The main pivot of my previous reply
appears not to have been answered
within this answer to it.
The main thrust of your previous
argument seemed to be based on
your assumption that 4 onditions
exist within the rule allowing two
valid c, costs. Do you now agree or
disagree  that only two conditions
(A1 and A2) exist within Hamilton's
rule allowing just one valid cost, c?

> JM:-
> And that is why I was so surprised that you insisted that
> the rule has to be able to _measure_ the difference between
> two different "c"s - which seems to suggest that there are somehow
> four different fitness associations involved.

JE:-
Two different VALUES of c remain witin
the rule. These are: ABSOLUTE and RELATIVE values
of c and NOT just "positive" and "negative" values
of c. Hamilton's employment of just the mathematical
signs (+) and (-) to separate OFA and OFM
does _not_ separate the absolute measure
of fitness from just a relative measure
of it. This remains my most important point.


> > > JM:-
> > > Also, I have a quibble regarding the wording of Box A.  You write
> > > "the rule is MISUSED when it is employed to measure when organism
> > > fitness altruism (OFA) can evolve".  I think you would agree that
> > > it would have been better to write "... to PREDICT when OFA
> > > can evolve".
> > > And, in any case, I remain very unconvinced regarding your proposition
> > > in Box A.

> > JE:-
> > As Dr Hoelzer correctly pointed out, the rule
> > does not seek to predict anything, it just
> > attempts to measure fitness.

> JM:-
> As has been apparent for some time, my interpretation of Hamilton
> differs from that that of Dr. Hoelzer on many points.  However,
> it is at least possible that we might come to agreement on this.
> The point is that, strictly speaking, mathematical formulas such
> as the rule, neither predict not measure.

JE:-
Only a testable theory of nature can "predict".
Over simplified models of them can only achieve
hypothetical measures of what such
a theory may do when variables are altered.
Variables can be set to zero or raised to infinity
within a simplified model, effectively deleting some
of them. This provides a useful tool to
_simulate_ how a theory may behave under
conditions that may be impossible within nature.
IF an abolute assumption is deleted
within the model (which is the case within Hamilton's
rule) THEN the theory is absolutely CHANGED, i.e.
it now becomes a contesting theory (again, this
was the case with Hamilton's rule allwong OFA
which was not allowed by Darwinism).

> JM:-
> People predict and
> measure, perhaps using a formula as a tool in the prediction or
> measurement.

JE:-
Just a formulea all by itself cannot tell you if it
represents a theory of just a simplified model from
that theory. If the formulea deletes a maximum/minimum
or constant of the theory from which the model was
simplified, then the model is invalid because it
has invalidly eleveated itself to become a contesting
theory (as was the case with Hamilton's rule).

> JM:-
> For example, Newton's "f=ma" can be used to predict acceleration
> (given force and mass) or it can be used to measure mass, given
> measurements of force and acceleration.  Someone like you, who
> doubts the validity of Hamilton's rule, would only use it for
> prediction - as part of an exercise in refutation.  However, someone
> like Dr. Hoelzer, who accepts the validity of the rule, might well
> use it as an indirect tool of measurement.  Though I am not sure
> that I see how he would do that.

JE:-
As long as m remains a constant
within the model formulea then
this formulea conforms to the
theory of Newton's mechanics
and thus represents a valid
model of that theory. However,
at no time can this model
contest and win against the theory
it was only simplified from.


> > > JM:-
> > > And finally, a suggestion:  Instead of making grand pronouncements
> > > as to what an evolutionary rule must or must not do, why not focus
> > > on one rule - Hamilton's - and try to understand what it says and the
> > > logic behind it.

> > JE:-
> > That is exactly what I have been doing
> > for over 3 years. The Neo Darwinians that
> > post here have done nothing but evade this
> > basic issue for over 3 years.
> > Please note: you (like most posters here)
> > have mistaken testable pronouncements for
> > "grand pronouncements". I am afraid that
> > ALL testable theories will appear "grand" to
> > those that only play about in the sandpit of
> > non testable models. Blame them and not me
> > for their warped psychological perspective.

> JM:-
> Sometimes what you write is testable.  What I had
> in mind as a prototypical "grand pronouncement" was
> your Box A.

JE:-
Box A was NOT a  "grand pronouncement" it was
simply, an announcment of a TESTABLE DARWINIAN
THEORY. Am I supposed to apologise for it?!?

I have _unambiguously_ defined Darwinian
fitness and provided a biological
test to refutation, of that definition.
It is not possible to provide any more.
Only one Neo Darwinist that will identify
himself has commented: Dr Guy Hoelzer.
His comment so far: "interesting". NAS
has commented but wishes to remain
anonymous. That is it.


>snip<

> JM:-
> The Box A statement strikes me as "grand", not because you have
> placed it in a box, but because it is so extremely ambitious.

JE:-
Yes, Darwin's THEORY remains VERY AMBITIOUS
as does ANY testable theory of nature. Is
Darwin supposed to apologise, retrospectively?

> JM:-
> It claims to state conditions that must be satisfied by
> ANY rule that can be "employed to measure when organism
> fitness altruism (OFA) can evolve."

JE:-
It simply states (in my undertsanding
of what you have written you have agreed that
this remains true) that OFA is _not_ proven unless
the _absolute_ fitness of the _actor_ can be proven
to to be _selected_ to be lowered. No abolute fitness
exists ANYWHERE within Hamilton's rule (i.e. no
fitness TOTALS exist in it) so the rule, as it stands,
cannot measure any absolute reduction of ANYTHING
let alone a reduction in the actors absolute
fitness. ERGO: the rule CANNOT measure OFA as its
purports to be able to do. THEREFORE: the rule
was misused to support OFA when classical group
selection failed to be able to do so.


> JM:-
> Furthermore, as our confusion (over whether this pronouncement
> needs two or four fitness associations) indicates, it is far
> too ambiguous to merit the box that surrounds it.

JE:-
No confusion exists here. ONLY TWO fitness associations
are attempted to be measured within Hamilton's rule
(A1 and A2) requiring just a single value of just one
cost, c (not the FOUR fitness associations that
you have suggested requiring two and not just one, c).
These TWO fitness associations defined by the rule
are:

1) Mutualism: measured as true in every case of +c
2) Altruism : measured as true in every case of -c

In the rule 1) CAN be varified BUT 2) CANNOT
BE VARIFIED. Every measure of +c could also
be MUTUALISM with just _one_ exception: when
c = cmax where the actor becomes the eqivalent
of just a sterile form.

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 7/19/04 5:06:41 PM