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".
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Surely it's everything that causes the values of r, b and c that are 
> causative of OFA.
> 
> JE:-
> No, "everything that causes the values of r, b and c"
> is causative to EITHER OFA and OFM. 

OK, same difference - you were discussing this in terms of OFA.  But we 
do agree on this point.


>>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. 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Are you claiming that nothing causes fitness differences?
> 
> JE:-
> I am claiming that whatever causes a fitness
> difference is only _selected_ at a point of 
> fitness comparison. Relative fitness is just
> a default comparison of at least two absolute
> fitnesses. This comparison is by simple
> default, i.e. nothing makes the comparison
> and no energy is consumed in making it.
> In the thread:
> 
> 	Intersecting Sets of Fitness
> 
> I have illustrated how this happens in the logic
> of pure mathematics. You and all your colleagues
> did not wish to know. I am still waiting for you
> to reply to my last posting. My proposition is simple. 
> Relative fitness is just a default comparison
> of two numerical totals. This can be represented 
> as a standard set theory intersection. When two
> numerical totals are fully intersected and they are
> not equal, one total must become a sub set of the
> other. This being the case, only one set exists
> to be selected. However, when this set is selected
> the sub set is selected with it but not simultaneously.
> The sub set is selected AFTER the set it is just a
> subset of, is FIRSTLY selected. Thus the set intersection
> of many independent totals will provide all the orders
> of natural selection. This is the same logic of winning
> a race. Somebody must come 1st, 2nd etc, i.e. everything
> is selected but not simultaneously and not equally.
> 
> 
> 
>>----------- end quote --------------------
>>
>>Then OFA cannot be separated from OFM
>>by just measuring c. 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> 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.  
> 

> 
> BOH:-
> 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.
> 
> JE:-
> Indeed, 

Good, we agree again.

Hamilton's rule _cannot_ separate OFA from OFM
> but you agreed that the rule was used to support OFA when
> group selection failed to do so. 

Indeed.  Altruism is one explanation for traits which were explained by 
group selection.

This support was invalid
> because at all times, _either_ OFA OR OFM was providing
> this "support". 

Indeed.  Mutualism is another explanation.

You can't use OFM to support OFA, can you!
> This is because OFA and OFM stands in complete contradiction
> to each other. 

Indeed, but that means that in any case only one can be acting (this is 
obvious from their definitions).

Unless the rule can separate OFA from OFM then
> no support for OFA exists using Hamilton's rule. Thus your
> answer of "no" to my question:
> 
> Was Hamilton's rule misused to support OFA after group
> selection failed to do so,
> 
> remains self contradictory.
> 
Not true.  Now, it is possible that there are no cases of altruism in 
nature, in which case one cannot use mutualism to explain traits 
apparently harmful to individuals.  However, as there are examples (e.g. 
the worker classes of eusocial insects) where the direct effect on 
fitness in negative - i.e. when we actually measure c we find that it is 
positive - OFA would seem to be a possible explanation for the evolution 
of that behaviour in that organism.


>>>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. 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> 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.
> 
> JE:-
> If a gene relatively increases but absolutely decreases,
> it can be said to have "invaded a population" in
> one point of time only. In this instance the absolute 
> worth of that gene has DECREASED. Unless a larger unit 
> of time is allowed then the _disastrous_ effect
> of this absolute decrease in fitness remains 
> invisible. Darwinism allows a unit of time that
> is equal to the time taken to complete a fitness
> total, i.e. points of time that are less than this
> must produce _inaccurate_ results. Hamilton's non
> defined time unit can only produce inaccurate results.
> 


> 
> 
> 
>>>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:-
> "OFM and OFA were defined in relation to c, 
> but with no mention of Hamilton's rule" ?
> 
> You have agreed that c exists within the rule.

Yes, and outside the rule too.

Please, again, show that Hamilton's rule has been used to separate 
altruism from mutualism.  It's the crux of your argument, and without 
any evidence that this has been done, your statement about misuse breaks 
down.

If you want to do this scientifically, falsify my (bold) hypothesis 
"Hamilton's rule has not been used to separate altruism from mutualism".

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 8:25:25 PM