John Edser wrote:
>>>>>JE:-
>>>>>If -c is mutualism and +c is altruism
>>>>>but c is arbitrary within the rule then
>>>>>the rule cannot discriminate between them.
>>>>
> 
>>>>BOH:-
>>>>Yes, I totally agree.
>>>
> 
>>>>JE:-
>>>>Do you agree that the
>>>>sign of c remains arbitrary
>>>>within the rule?
>>>
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>Yes.
>>
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>Do you now conclude that Hamilton's
>>>rule has been misused to explain apparent
>>>OFM in nature?
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>No.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Please explain why you are not just contradicting
>>yourself. IF you agree that OFM and OFA can
>>only be indicated within the rule via the
>>sign of c but the sign of c remains _arbitrary_
>>THEN, OFA cannot be separated from OFM can it?
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Of course it can.  By examining the sign of c.
> 
> JE:-
> Absurd. Do you know that the
> word "arbitrary" means:
> "Based on or subject to individual
> discretion or preference or sometimes
> impulse or caprice", i.e. OFA can only
> be  separated from OFM within Hamilton's
> rule via "discretion or preference
> or sometimes impulse or caprice"!{at}#
> 
No, Hamilton's rule can't be used to separate out mutualism and altruism 
at all.





>>>JE:-
>>>..
>>>All sterile forms come from non sterile
>>>forms and not vice versa. The effect sterile
>>>forms  can have is only selectable at the fertile
>>>level of selection and not at a sterile
>>>level of selection. Do you agree or disagree?
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>Yes, I agree.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Given your agreement do you now conclude
>>that sterile eusocial casts must have a
>>zero fitness,
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> No.
> 
> JE:-
> Yet another absolute self contradiction.
> 
> IF "all sterile forms come from non sterile
> forms and not vice versa" so that "the effect
> sterile forms  can have is only selectable at
> the fertile level of selection and not at a
> sterile level of selection" THEN "sterile
> eusocial casts must have a zero fitness"

Not true.  They have zero direct fitness (assuming that a sterile 
individual is always sterile - if it has the option of becoming fertile, 
then it's fitness - or in your terms its expected fitness - is 
non-zero), but their indirect fitness does not have to be zero.



>>>JE:-
>>>Do you agree that DARWINIAN competition
>>>between donors must fail to let Hamilton's
>>>hypothetical altruistic gene pass otherwise
>>>Darwin stands refuted?
>>
>>BOH:-
>>I have to admit that I'm not aware of Darwin's own position on the
>>levels of selection debate, and to be honest it onlt seems of historical
>>relevance.  Even if Darwin is refuted on this point, it makes little
>>difference.  His contribution to biology as a science was immense, and I
>>am more than happy to forgive him a few errors.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>"Forgive him a few errors"?
>>Your arrogance astounds me!
>>It is the gene centric Neo Darwinian
>>establishment that keep making all the
>>errors because they have entirely
>>and consistently deleted
>>gene fitness epistasis.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> *SIGH*  Fisher explicitly included epistasis in his fundamental theory.
>   And this is a separate issue to the levels of selection debate.
> 
> JE:-
> Firstly:
> I referred to gene _fitness_ epistasis
> and not just, "genetic epistasis".
> Gene FITNESS epistasis was entirely
> deleted within Fisher's reasoning.
> Also, he redefined genetic epistasis
> to now mean, "additive epistasis". This
> just means zero _real_ epistasis.
> 
This is simply false.  Please read Chapter 2 of Fisher's "The Genetical 
Theory of natural Selection" before continuing along this line.  Fisher 
doesn't even mention additivity, but he actually includes all epistatic 
effects on fitness.



>>JE:-
>>The proposition was VERY SIMPLE:
>>EITHER Darwin's fertile organism level
>>allows or disallows the selection of
>>Hamilton's OFA gene. Does it allow it
>>or does it disallow it?
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> I'm not sure that "Darwin's fertile organism level" allows
or disallows
> anything.
> 
> JE:-
> Every level of selection determines
> what shall be selected at _that_ level.
> OK?
> 
> BOH:-
> It hardly seems to have the necessary capabilities to make
> these sorts of decisions.
> 
> JE:-
> "Hardly seems to have the necessary capabilities"?
> We are talking about Darwinian natural selection
> and not incompetent gene centric Professors of
> Neo Darwinism.
> 
Indeed.  There is no thought involved, so in no sense can anything be 
said to allow or disallow any actions.  It just happens.

> 
> 
>>>>JE:-
>>>>___________________________
>>>>Do you understand
>>>>the difference between
>>>>"absolute parental fitness"
>>>>and "population growth"?
>>>>___________________________
>>>
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>Simply the difference between the
>>>individual and the population.
>>
>>
> 
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>What aspect of "the individual"
>>>does "absolute parental fitness"
>>>represent and why is it _not_ a
>>>"population" aspect?
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>Growth rate.  And because they may differ between individuals.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Exactly.
>>Is it not a fact that "because they may differ between individuals"
>>Darwinian selection must select there and then against any donor
>>with a lower reproduction of fertile forms no matter if this
>>event does not suit Hamilton's "selfish gene"?
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> No.  Because it may lower the absolute fitness of EVERY individual in
> the population.
> 
> The only thing that can "lower the absolute fitness
> of EVERY individual in the population" is a reduction
> of EVERY parental absolute fitness. This _absurdity_ occurs
> when all members of the population carry Hamilton's
> OFA gene. 

Wrong.  In the example we were discussing, only one individual carried 
the gene.

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 2/28/04 3:37:38 PM