"Name And Address Supplied"
 wrote in
message news:cbumko$1r5u$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> Guy Hoelzer  wrote in message
news:...
> > in article cblk8u$27qa$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, William Morse at
> > wdmorse{at}twcny.rr.com wrote on 6/26/04 10:00 PM:
> > > It might not be considered
> > > altruism by most, but in fact is, since being toxic doesn't help an
> > > individual at first - the individual will still be killed by the
> > > predator.The predator is likely thereafter to avoid the species - so
it is
> > > only after the toxicity gene has spread that it provides any advantage
to
> > > the bearer. The initial benefit has to be to other individuals who are
> > > likely to share the gene - i.e. kin. Note here that the benefit does
not
> > > have to be only to kin - in the monarch butterfly example the benefit
would
> > > be to all monarch butterflies -  the benefit to kin only has to exceed
the
> > > cost to the individual.
> >
> > I agree that this accurately represents the kin selection model.
> >
>
> I do not. If the gene benefitted all monarch butteflies equally, and
> carries any personal cost, then the gene is relatively unfit, and will
> decrease in frequency.

I agree with NAS's quibble, though, as Tyler points out, the butterfly
"altruism" can be shoehorned into Hamilton if there is spatial structure
and the gene benefits local monarchs more than it benefits all monarchs.
Local monarchs are disproportionately likely to be kin.

However, the sheer weakness of the resulting bias toward kin is the
reason why I don't believe that Hamilton has solved this puzzle.
---
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 7/1/04 1:31:34 PM