jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net (Jim Menegay) wrote 



> > > . . . the threshold ratio for positive 
> > > selection of an altruistic gene is independent 
> > > of whether the frequency of the gene in the 
> > > population is 10% or 90%.
> > 
> > What's this got to do with anything?  What 
> > "threshold ratio," are you talking about. 
> 
> Huh? Am I still talking to the same Jim McGinn 
> who was so unpleasant about a week ago when I 
> first explained this?

Just like Hamilton et al. you assumed that altruism 
was maladaptive and therefore required an additional 
explanation to overcome the "threshold," this 
explanation being the higgly piggly of Hamilton's 
rule.  When I asked you to explain this assumption 
you completely disregarded my request and, instead, 
proceded to expound upon the higgly piggly.

The point I was trying to make (which you 
misinterpreted as an attack) was that the assumption 
that altruism is maladaptive is an artifact of a 
mistaken assumption that selection happens/occurs on 
the level of the individual and not also (and 
simultaneously) on any and all other levels.

Let me put it this way.  Suppose that instead of 
attempting to explain the altruism of individual 
organisms that we were attempting to explain the 
altruism of cells.  From the perspective cells as 
"the" unit of selection the altruism that is plainly 
apparent in cells (white blood cells, for example, 
give their lives to protect the rest of the cells in 
a multicellular organism) makes no sense.  It would 
seem, then, that we'd be required to devise some 
kind of cell-based version of Hamilton's rule.  

We don't see people attempting to devise a cell-based 
version of Hamilton's rule.  Why not?  Because 
convention dictates that we start from the assumption 
(misassumption) that selection happens/occurs on the 
level of the individual.  And from the perspective of 
this assumed individual unit of selection the 
altruism of cells in multicellular organisms is not a 
problem at all--in fact it is predicted. In other 
words, from the perspective of individual selection 
the "threshold," against the evolution of altruism in 
cells completely disappears.  Likewise, from the 
perspective of levels of selection higher than the 
individual (group, population, species, ecosystem) the 
same thing happens, the threshold against the 
evolution of altruism in individuals disappears.  

So, as I indicated above, the threshold that you 
percieved did not actually exist accept as an artifact 
of the misassumption that individuals are the one and 
only unit of selection.  By preventing you from 
starting from the perspective of this assumption I was, 
essentially, giving you an impossible task.  I was 
asking you to explain the existence of something, the 
"threshold," that did not actually exist.  I think this 
may be why you found the task so unpleasant.



> Both c and b have units of fitness. 

Er, . . .  The problems start when you actually try to 
quantify this.

Jim
---
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 4/29/04 6:33:41 AM