"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > The appropriate maximand is something which might be called 
> > > > >'relative
> > > > > fitness'.  This obviously doesn't increase over
time, since the
> > > > > expectation of relative fitness at all times is 1.
>  
> > > > TT:-
> > > > That sort of relative fitness has some problems of its
own.  Who else
> > > > do you include in the population?  Only other members
of the species?
>  
> > > 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.
> 

1 is not an approximation, it is exactly true, by definition.

v = w/E[w] => E[v] = E[w]/E[w] = 1 

> > > 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. 

To take the famous game theoretic example, a population of 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.

> 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.

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:-
> > > 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?

In general, no. But for a broad class of situations, relative fitness
suffices.

> > > 2) A general term for such a fitness must be 
> > > explicitly included within all population genetics
> > > models otherwise these models are proven misused.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > A model can be extremely useful even if it is not completely general.
> 
> JE:-
> I entirely agree.
> Do you agree that a model is always
> just a simplification of a testable
> theory, i.e. no theory, no model.
> A "completely general" model is
> the entire (non simplified) 
> theory.

It depends what you mean by 'model'. 
 
> > NAS:-
> > Especially when tackling a new evolutionary problem for the first
> > time, it can be nice to come up with a simple model, acknowledge its
> > limitations, and derive simple predictions. The full formal model can
> > come later.
> 
> 
> JE:-
> The only valid function of such a 
> model is to act as an aid to help 
> test the theory from which it was
> simplified. These models have been
> chronically misused by gene centric
> Neo Darwinists, e.g. Hamilton et al
> and genetic drift models. These
> researcher's invalidly allowed models
> to compete and win against the 
> testable theory they were simplified 
> from.

Your use of 'model' and 'theory' is confusing . . . how can a 'model'
compete and win against a 'theory' . . . ?

> 
> Modelling simplifications are only valid
> it at least one absolute assumption 
> are RETAINED as a general term within the 
> model. The reason why Hamilton's rule failed
> is because no general term exists within it
> to represent Darwinian fitness (as I have
> previously defined it). Until such a term
> is included organism fitness mutualism
> (OFM) and organism fitness altruism (OFA)
> cannot be separated within the rule as
> Dr O'Hara has reluctantly admitted:
> --------------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 --------------------
> 
> Not a single sbe poster will comment on 
> the above excahnge, including Dr O'Hara!
> Until he professionals that post here
> comment, they have no credibility.

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:-
> > > I have identified this missing absolute fitness
> > > as just Darwinian fitness (an objective fitness that
> > > has only remained implicit since the inception
> > > of Darwinism).
>  
> > NAS:-
> > You haven't convinced me. 
> 
> JE:-
> I have no intention of convincing
> anybody of anything. All that is required 
> is that you separate out, without bias, 
> the testable theory that fits the largest 
> set of documented facts.

Oh, I was under the impression that you had some sort of insight you
wished to impart.
 
> > > JE:-
> > > ______________________________________________
> > > Darwinian fitness:
> > > The total number of fertile forms reproduced
> > > within one population by each parent.
> > > ______________________________________________
> > > 
> > > I have also provided an empirical test against
> > > nature (not just a heuristic model) for the above 
> > > definition that can test it to refutation as
> > > Karl Popper required. The same experiment tests 
> > > for any _requirement_ for popular multi level 
> > > selection  within evolutionary theory. If the 
> > > definition remains non refuted then all multi 
> > > level selection theory can be validly removed 
> > > by Occam's Razor. Also, any use of the word 
> > > "evolution" to mean just a random _process_ 
> > > alone, must be corrected to mean "variation".
> > > 
> > > The Neo Darwinian that post here will not
> > > critically discuss:
> > > 
> > > 1) The above definition of Darwinian fitness.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > I thought this was what we were doing, John.
> 
> JE:-
> Only Dr Hoelzer has made a single comment: 
> "interesting". That is it!
> 

Whereas I, on the other hand, have made more than a single comment.

> > > JE:-
> > > 2) The empirical test that proves it.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > Well, I did suggest a test of your maximand - sex allocation. I
> > believe that absolute fertile offspring number is insufficient to
> > explain how sex allocation evolves under natural selection. I have
> > other tests, but we will stick to sex allocation for now.
> 
> JE:-
> OK, thank you for your question.
> I will reply in detail as soon 
> as possible. Here, I would just
> like to comment that this question
> is really dealing with the evolution
> of sex. Do you agree that this is the
> case?

That would not be the consensus interpretation, no. Sex allocation
concerns the relative provisionment of resources into male as opposed
to female offspring, and not into sexually as opposed to asexually
produced offspring.
 
> > > JE:-
> > > 3) The consequences of this definition
> > > and its test to popular Neo Darwinism and
> > > its total reliance on over simplified models.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > Your implication is that your definition is the correct one.
> 
> JE:-
> No, my ASSUMPTION is that my definition
> is correct. Because it is a refutable
> definition my assumption of correctness
> remains VALID.
> 

Okay, I am very much looking forward to the new Edserian theory of sex
allocation.

> >snip<
>  
> > > JE:-
> > > 4) Prefer to retain outmoded hand waving concepts
> > > of fitness that only allow rubbery interpretations
> > > of nature.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > Well, it depends on the problem at hand. I am happy to sacrifice some
> > level of rigour in order to get at an answer, and will gladly
> > highlight these sacrifices along the way. 
> 
> JE:-
> My example: Hamilton's rule, deleted Darwinian
> fitness (as I defined it). The rule ended
> up mathematically correct but biologically 
> unintelligible (see BOH quote above) confounding
> an issue of major biological importance for
> over fifty years: OFM.
> 

Rather than citing O'Hara, why not cite Hamilton?

> > NAS:-
> > Then I or some other
> > researcher can follow up with a more rigorous analysis, to see if the
> > simplifying assumptions significantly affect the predictions.
> 
> JE:-
> Hamilton's deletion of Darwinian fitness within
> his rule totally confounded discussion re: the
> evolution of OFM which I contend is 
> THE MAJOR GENERAL ISSUE within
> evolutionary biology.
> 

My advice is for you to write this up in the format of a research
paper, and then possibly your points will be intelligible to the
interested reader.

> > > JE:-
> > > 5)A test of the common use of just an
> > > assumed random processes to cause evolution.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > Sorry, but I can't make head nor tail of point (5).
> 
> 
> JE:-
> The absence of any test that can verify
> the common usage of just an assumed 
> random process (random sampling error known as 
> "genetic drift") to alone, cause evolution.
>

Nope, still not following.
---
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 7/10/04 2:51:54 AM