John Edser wrote:

> 
> BOH:-
> Given a
> standard evolutionary scenario, it can be used to predict if a behaviour
> will invade a population.  The behaviour is causative,
> because it causes differences in fitness.
> 
> JE:-
> The behaviour is supposed to be coded by Hamilton's gene.
> Hamilton's altruistic phenotype is supposed to be "heritable".
> The fitness change is supposed to benefit a gene at a supposed
> gene level of selection. The relative difference in fitness
> that results in a natural selective event is a comparison
> of gains for that gene at Hamilton's gene level (rb) compared
> to gains for that gene at Darwin's organism level (c). When
> rb>c then gains for the gene at Hamilton's supposed gene level
> is supposed to be selected for, causing OFA at Darwin's organism
> level. It is just utter nonsense to suggest that "Hamilton's rule
> doesn't cause anything".
> 
Surely it's everything that causes the values of r, b and c that are 
causative of OFA.

> 
> BOH:-
> The results of applying the rule to the
> scenario is a consequence of the causative
> action of the behaviour.
> 
> JE:-
> "The behaviour is causative only
> because it allows differences
> in fitness" BUT FITNESS is alone
> selectively causative because
> it must select for any changes
> in _heritable_ behaviour that
> INCREASES fitness. 

Are you claiming that nothing causes fitness differences?


> ----------- end quote --------------------
> 
> Then OFA cannot be separated from OFM
> by just measuring c. 

It seems I have to repeat myself.  They CAN be separated by mesuring c, 
because they are defined in terms of the sign of c.  Hamilton's rule is 
not used to separate OFA from OFM - it's used to show whether a 
behaviour which is either OFA or OFM can invade a population.

I would hope that this is the last time you throw this at me - I've 
repeated this enough times that I would hope you're already aware of my 
opinion on the matter.  Either show that I'm wrong - i.e. how Hamilton's 
rule can be used to measure c or drop this line of argument.


> 
>>BOH:-
>> we can decide
>>whether the behaviour (or to be precise the alleles coding for the
>>behaviour) will invade a population.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>ONLY on just a relative basis. Invading a population
>>on only a relative fitness basis is just a
>>_hopelessly_ incomplete view. Do you agree or
>>disagree?
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> What?  Either the behaviour invades or it does not.
> This seems fairly  absolute to me.
> 
> JE:-
> No, the above is just a relative
> increase. 

But we still either say that the behaviour has invaded the population or 
not.  THAT is absolute.  We can compare the population that has been 
invaded with any other population, and it's still invaded.


> 
>>BOH:-
>>If your argument is to have validity, then you should show clearly that
>>Hamilton's rule has been used to separate altruism from mutualism.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>It is just endless repeats.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Indeed.  Please show that Hamilton's rule
> has been used to separate
> altruism from mutualism.
> 
> JE:-
> You have previously agreed that Hamilton's rule was
> used to "support" OFA after group selection failed to
> do so. You also agreed that this was only accomplished
> via the sign of c. Hamilton et al defined OFA as any
> positive value of c and OFM as any negative value of
> c. Are you now reversing your agreement?
> 
No, non of those statements show that Hamilton's rule has been used to 
separate altruism from mutualism.

The first statement says that Hamilton's rule was used to show that OFA 
can evolve, with no mention of OFM, so is not any evidence.  The second 
acknowledges that Hamilton's rule uses c, but again with no mention of 
OFM.  The third states that OFM and OFA were defined in relation to c, 
but with no mention of Hamilton's rule.  So, no evidence for your claim.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 22 779
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org
---
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 3/31/04 2:35:34 AM