"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> 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.
> 

That is incorrect. The maximum relative fitness does not necessarily
coincide with the maximum absolute fitness, i.e. one evolutionary
strategy might maximise one and not the other. To decide which
strategy is favoured by natural selection, we need to choose between
the relative or absolute fitness maximand. And the relative fitness
maximand is the one that delivers the correct answer.

> > > > > > > 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?
> 

"mutualisation" is not a standard term in social evolution theory. I
suppose you are trying to say something about "mutualism", but clearly
you are referring to a process ("-ation" suffix), whereas
"mutualism"
is simply a way of describing a matrix of costs and benefits.

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

John, you'd save alot of your time and mine if you just got to the
point, say what you have to say, rather than have me guessing.

> > > 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.
>

Essentially, that absolute offspring number is the appropriate
maximand. I disagree.

> 
> > > > > 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.
>  

This is nonsense. What if the population size is not wholly influenced
by the trait in question? What if the population is only momentarily
decreasing in size, and will later start increasing again?

> > > > 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.
>

Indeed, but we were discussing an intraspecific example, an example
which I had proposed to illustrate a flaw in your reasoning.
 
> > > > > > > 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?
>

The appropriate maximand.
 
> > > 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.
>

The reference is provided by the question. Contrast "how does an
allele's frequency change in a population" with "how does a species
abundance change in a community". The key references are "population"
and "community" respectively. An allele might increase even though it
causes an absolute decline in population size - but if we are
answering the first of the two questions, we do not care about the
decline of the population size, since the allele's frequency is
measured within the population.
 
> 
> > > 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.
> 

Okay. It is a mass of assertions. Why can we not test the theory of
relative fitnesses?

> 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.
> 

A marginal fitness cost is a partial regression of fitness against
own's own strategy.
---
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 7/23/04 9:41:14 PM