John Edser wrote:

>>JE:-
>>PLEASE EXPLAIN: given the above 7 agreements and
>>the fact that you wrote on Sun 29/02/2004:
>>“Hamilton's rule can't be used to separate out
>>mutualism and altruism” how can validly
>>conclude that:
>>“I don't think it has been mis-used”?
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Because it isn't used to separate out mutualism and altruism.  If we a
> behaviour where we have measured r, b, and c (and from the value of c
> defined the behaviour as either altruism or mutualism),
> 
> JE:-
> Predictably, you have entirely reversed the causative
> assumption of OFA with just its effect. Hamilton's rule
> was  and remains, a causative mechanism that is
> _supposed_ to cause BOTH OFM and OFA within nature.

Hamilton's rule doesn't cause anything (except hot air).  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.  The results of applying the rule to the 
scenario is a consequence of the causative action of the behaviour.


> 
> 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?
> 
What?  Either the behaviour invades or it does not.  This seems fairly 
absolute to me.

> 
>>BOH:-
>>Given the fact that any admission of misuse would
>>substantiate a considerable error on the part of
>>yourself and your colleagues, why shouldn't sbe readers
>>now validly conclude that your answer is only an attempt
>>to protect your yourself, your colleagues and your
>>point of view from valid criticism because it cannot
>>be substantiated without contradicting one or more
>>of your 7 admissions?
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Because the arguments make sense?  Actually the crux of my argument is
> Hamilton's rule hasn't been used in the way that you say it has.
> 
> JE:-
> EITHER the rule causes OFA or OFA causes the
> rule? Which is it?
> 
Neither, as you would know if you have been reading what I've been writing.

> 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. 

Indeed.  Please show that Hamilton's rule has been used to separate 
altruism from mutualism.  I would like to see some evidence in the form 
of citations of papers, books etc. where biologists have used Hamilton's 
rule has been used to separate altruism from mutualism.  If you can't 
provide any evidence, then your argument falls down at the first hurdle.



Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara
Department 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: www.jnr-eeb.org
---
ţ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 3/29/04 11:49:03 AM