In article ,
Jim McGinn  wrote:
>As I explain previously, the logic of Hamilton's kin selection 
>pivots off of nothing but an erroneous application of english 
>(specifically it involves misusage of the word share which 
>involves two different meanings of the word being used 
>interchangeably).  When this misusage is corrected Hamilton's 
>kin selection falls like a house of cards.  This is true 
>regardless of whether the person investigating it is or is not 
>a "sober-minded evolution professional."

Oh here we go again.  There have been many debates on this newsgroup
about the logic of kin selection, between McGinn and many others.
McGinn is convinced he has refuted the logic of Hamilton's rules for
kin selection.  No one else seems to agree that he has.  Before we
rehash all this again, interested persons should reread some of these
previous threads.  In particular, I call attention to the thread
"Re: Part2 (Kin Selection)" which you can find by using that phrase
in Google Groups search, or by using
  McGinn Felsenstein "kin selection"
in Google Groups.

In a posting of 26 October 2002 I put forward a list of assumptions
which I hoped to use to demonstrate that in a simple model, Hamilton's
rule could be derived.  McGinn immediately (27 October 2002) objected to
the assumptions, saying that this approach "lacks causal validity" and
"involves the wholescale inclusion of whole sets of unexamined
assumptions".
He would not put forward any simple model of his own that could be shown to
come to any different conclusion than Hamilton's rule.  He objected to all
simple models as oversimplified.

He describes the situation in dramatic terms ("falls like a house of
cards", "the confusion that ensues when such care is not taken", 
"your continued belief in the validity of a Hamilton's equation even though
you are unable to demonstrate it's validity", and "Hamilton's equations has
never amounted to anything but a rather vague analogy",
"Hamilton's fantasy",
and "the establishment accepted Hamilton's Rule and has since continued
pretending that it makes sense").

Given our inability to get a model-based argument out of McGinn, I asked in
frustration (11 November 2002):

"Perhaps we should see whether he has convinced anyone at all.
Is there anyone else out there who thinks McGinn has shown that Hamilton's
result is invalid?  If so, do they have some model situation that
could help us understand the logic of that objection?"

Silence.  No one agreed, even tentatively, with McGinn's assertions.  I suggest
that his argument convinced no one else.  If so, this puts McGinn's
dramatic descriptions into perspective.

I hope that before a lengthy repetition of this argument, that people
reread some of this old debate, judge for themselves whether they agree with
McGinn.  If they do, I hope that they will explain here why they do.

-- 
Joe Felsenstein         joe{at}removethispart.gs.washington.edu
 Department of Genome Sciences and Department of Biology,
 University of Washington, Box 357730, Seattle, WA 98195-7730 USA
---
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 6/8/04 12:23:31 PM