"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:cd3jqv$2kq5$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
[snip apparent agreement regarding the meaning of what JE
 asked and what BOH answered.  However, I suspect that
 JE and BOH are still talking past each other, because
 they disagree on what "b" and "c" represent.]

> JE:-
> Discussion:
> It is _perfectly_ clear that the rule was indeed
> mathematically sound but biologically meaningless.

Not perfectly clear to me.

> Hamilton's rule _cannot_ measure when an ALTRUISTIC
> gene spreads because it cannot discriminate between
> just a phoney altruistic gene that actually provides
> a mutual benefit which _can_ be selected using
> a normal Darwinian fitness (exactly as I had
> defined it in box 1 in a previous thread) and
> a real altruistic gene that provides an absolute
> fitness loss to the actor which _cannot_ be selected
> for using Darwinian fitness (it _required_ the
> inclusive fitness definition provided by Hamilton
> et al).

I think I see the possibility of a light at the end
of a long tunnel.

Edser distinguishes between "phony altruism" (that can
be selected FOR using a normal Darwinnian fitness)
and "real altruism" (that provides an absolute
fitness loss to the actor, and is selected AGAINST).

Hamilton's rule creates an explicit distinction between
altruistic behaviors with rb>c (which are selected for)
and altruistic behaviors with rbc)
it is possible for a gene to spread in a population,
when the effect of the gene is to cause its carriers to act
altruistically (at cost to their own Darwinian fitness,
but at benefit to the Darwinnian fitnesses of the fortunate
beneficiaries of the action).

I suspect that John believes that Theorem 1 is impossible
given the two axioms.  I believe that the theorem is a
consequence of the axioms.  I would suggest that this
discussion continue with either John's attempt to disprove
the theorem, or my attempt to prove it.  Your choice, John.

I suspect that many people in this group might want to
quibble as to whether the two axioms are true.  I would
ask that they defer their quibbles.  The axioms are at least
close to being rules of nature, even if there are some
exceptions.  And Hamilton's theorem is a theorem that
doesn't rely on those exceptions.  It follows from the
axioms as given.
---
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 7/15/04 5:00:43 PM