Name And Address Supplied wrote:-

> > > 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.

> NAS:-
> 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:-
I will argue that you not correct where
such a basic difference does allow a test.
Using such a test, either your view or my
view must will stand refuted. Do you agree
that this is the case?

> > 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?

> NAS:-
> "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.

JE:-
It is nonsense for NAS to suggest that
"mutualisation is not a standard term" because
it remains employed (but just soundly ignored!)
by Hamilton et al within Hamilton's rule.
This rule attempts to measure
fitness changes via an _association_ between
a single actor and recipient/recipients. It
is IMPOSSIBLE to measure when any association
can evolve by only measuring _unilateral_ gains,
i.e. gains/losses to just the actor OR the
recipient. At all times, the fitness being
measured by Hamilton et al is _not_ unilateral.

___________________________________________
Definition:
Mutualisation within Hamilton's rule is the
process whereby both the recipient and the
actor make a fitness gain.
___________________________________________

For this gain to be REAL it has to be
a measured ABSOLUTE gain, i.e. the
gain must constitute a total of
some kind that allows a net result
and not just a gross result,
to be calculated. Do you agree?


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

> NAS:-
> 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:-
You brought this up and not me.
Hamilton et al deal in the evolution
of fitness _associations_.
Any association is a form of co-operation
where this may provide negative or positive
outcomes for those involved.

_____________________________________________
Co-operation within and between species
has generated only _one_ Evolutionary Stable
Strategy. Please tell sbe reader's  what
you think it is.
_____________________________________________


> > > > 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.

> NAS:-
> Essentially, that absolute offspring number is the appropriate
> maximand. I disagree.

JE:-
So there is no confusion, this absolute assumption is
defined as the total number of fertile forms reproduced
into one population by each parent, i.e. it is represented
by a testable numerical total that once created remains fixed
for  all time within biological history.

To avoid confusion, please explain what your
"hypothetical counter example" was and how
it differed to my claim.


> > > > > > 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.

> NAS:-
> 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?

JE:-
You do not understand the implications of
an absolute fitness (as defined above).

The fitness of traits coded by genomic genes are
epistatic to just _one_ fitness level within
this theory. Do you know what this proposed single
level of fitness is? AFAICS you incorrectly thought I
was only supplying  an over simplified MODEL. Such a
model would be utterly misused if it suggested
that at all times, within nature, the population
size "is wholly influenced by the trait in question".

>snip<

> > > > 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.

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

JE:-
For Darwinian theory where species are not
a valid absolute assumption, it makes
little difference because the logic remains
the same. So there is no confusion, please
quote or restate what my reasoning was
and then present your intraspecific example
that lllustrates "a flaw" in that reasoning.

> > > > 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?

> NAS:-
> The appropriate maximand.

JE:-
Please provide an unambiguous
definition of it.

> > > > 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.

> NAS:-
> 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:-
You have failed to distinguish between just a simplified
model and the theory it was simplified from. This provides
a real danger that you may allow just an over simplified
model to invalidly  compete and win against the theory
from which is was simplified/over simplified which I am
sure you would agree would be an absurdity.

How an allele's frequency changes in a population
and how a species abundance changes in a community
can only be explained using a testable theory. Please
provide or just acknowledge, such a theory.

> > > > 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.

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

JE:-
Unless you provide an absolute fitness
assumption you have no reference point
to measure __anything_ against. As an
obvious example, in Special Relativity,
if c was not a testable maximum, i.e.
was just another variable within E=Mc^2
then these many possible values of E
are just, incorrect i.e. here the equation
would be mathematically correct put only
provide _nonsense_ for the science of
physics.

> > 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.

> NAS:-
> A marginal fitness cost is a partial regression of fitness against
> own's own strategy.

JE:-
You have (again) failed to fully
answer this question. How can this
marginal fitness cost differ to
BOTH a  relative AND absolute
fitness cost?

Please answer this question.

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 7/24/04 10:24:14 PM