John Edser wrote:

> I ask you (yet again): do you agree or disagree that
> Hamilton's rule was misused when it was suggested that 
> it could allow a valid explanation of how OFA
> evolves within nature?
> 
I have answered this before.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> With or without the snips, do you agree
> that OFM must exclude the selection for
> the fitness suicide event you described 
> so that only OFA could be responsible for
> such an event?
> 
No.

> 
>>>>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"
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> 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:-
> "Expected fitness"? Is that something like
> bankrupt Enron's expected profits? 

No, it's a mathematical expectation.  E(X) = int X.f(X) dx
where X is a random variable, with probability density function f(x).

We are
> dealing with testable reality here and not 
> just a non testable "expected" reality which
> may turn out to be just another, non reality.
> You cannot claim that an expected fitness is
> valid until you firstly provide a valid claim of 
> exactly how you propose to measure fitness in-the-
> first-place. How do you measure fitness?
> 
I estimate it.  See, for example, hte material in my lecture notes:
http://www.rni.helsinki.fi/~boh/Teaching/Selection/Selec.html>
(or see Manly's book "The Statistics of Natural Selection").



>>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.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> 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:-
> Fisher deleted non additive epistasis as "non heritable"
> and thus "non selectable" within his over simplified models. 

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.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Indeed.  There is no thought involved, so in no sense can anything be 
> said to allow or disallow any actions.  It just happens.
> 
> JE:-
> Incorrect. 

If this is incorrect, then there must be thought involved.  In which 
case, you're promulgating intelligent design.

Now we'll see if Josh is awake.  :-)

[moderator' note: Josh is indeed awake, but maybe wishing he weren't.
You know, you two are getting nowhere in this thread. Maybe you ought
to give it a rest for a while, and let the group focus on other
topics for a bit? I'm not insisting, but it's worth considering. - JAH]


>>>>>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.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>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. 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Wrong.  In the example we were discussing, only one individual carried 
> the gene.
> 
> JE:-
> This makes no difference to the argument I provided.
> Because _individual_ growth rate (individual reproductive
> rates) differ within a population, Darwinian selection has
> no choice but to act against any organism donor the reduces 
> its own growth rate. 

No.  I have given you a concrete example where an individual can reduce 
its own growth rate, and the growth rate of the whole population.  You 
have yet to provide any explanation of why this behaviour cannot evolve.

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 3/1/04 11:35:48 AM