John Edser wrote:
>>BOH:-
>>If Mutualism is defined as having a
>>negative "cost", then that holds true
>>whether Hamilton is right or wrong.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>It was the rule that was being proffered
>>to support OFA when group selection
>>failed to do so!
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Indeed.
> 
> JE:-
> Do you also agree that Hamilton's rule
> was employed to suggest that OFA could
> exist within nature, 

Yes.

e.g. Hymenopteran
> eusocials and has been employed this way
> within gene centric Neo Darwinism for over
> 50 years allowing a massive OFA industry
> consuming billions of dollars worldwide?
> 
No, I doubt governments pay out that much money for this sort of 
research.  If they do, where is it all?  I think most of the 
propfessionals on s.b.e. would like to know.

> 
>>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?
> 
Yes.



>>>>JE:-
>>>>This end MUST BE DEFINED in
>>>>an unambiguous way. Please
>>>>provide either Hamilton's
>>>>or your own definition of
>>>>it.
>>>
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>Actually, it doesn't.  What is needed is a meaurement of the effects of
>>>changes in fitness due to the behaviour.  It doesn't matter what the
>>>behaviour is intended to do, only what are the consquences of the action.
>>
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>WHAT "are the" FITNESS "consequences of the action"?
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>The effects of the action on the fitnesses of all individuals concerned.
>>i.e. the differences between their fitness if the action had been
>>carried out, and their fitness if it had not.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Is this a measured difference in absolute or
>>relative fitness?
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Depends on which definition of fitness you want to use, because it
> doesn't matter.
> 
> JE:-
> Do you agree that Hamilton's rule only
> measures differences in relative fitnesses?
> 
Yes.  The fitnesses associated with carrying out the behaviour relative 
to the fitness associated with not carrying out the behaviour.



>>>>>>JE:-
>>>>>>1) No sterile form can have any fitness
>>>>>>at all, i.e. it cannot be altruistic
>>>>>>because it has no fitness to give away.
>>>>>
> 
>>>>>BOH:-
>>>>>Are you saying that a sterile form cannot
>>>>>act  to help a related individual?
>>>>
> 
>>>>>JE:-
>>>>>Obviously not.
>>>>
> 
>>>>BOH:-
>>>>So are you saying that any help provided by a sterile
individual cannot
>>>>change the fitness of the related individual?
>>>
> 
>>>>JE:-
>>>>The answer IS IN WHAT YOU SNIPPED.
>>>>I explicitly wrote that a sterile
>>>>form cannot have an INDEPENDENT
>>>>FITNESS.
>>>
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>But that wasn't what I was asking.  I was asking whether it is possible
>>>for a sterile individual to act in such a way as to change the fitness
>>>of another, related, individual.
>>
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>ANYTHING can, the wind, a tin can,
>>>wearing a hat with monkey on it...
>>>So what?
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>Well, if a sterile individual can have an effect on a related
>>individual's fitness, then it seems to use this fact when modelling the
>>fitness of a group of sterile and non-sterile individuals.  Especially
>>when looking at individuals who can switch between sterility and
> 
> fertility.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>A sterile individual, like a hat with a monkey
>>on it, can have an effect on related or non
>>related individuals. So what?
> 
> 
> BOH;-
> Well, if a sterile individual can have an effect on a related
> individual's fitness, then it seems to use this fact when modelling the
> fitness of a group of sterile and non-sterile individuals.  Especially
> when looking at individuals who can switch between sterility and fertility.
> 
> JE;-
> A sterile individual can only have an _affect_
> on non sterile individuals NOT an _effect_,
> i.e. all sterile forms come from non sterile
> forms and not vice versa. The _affect_ 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?
> 
I can't parse this - I don't understand the way you are using the noun 
"affect".  From my reading of the Oxford English Dictionary, you cannot 
have an "affect on" something - the nearest is "affect
for", which means 
you like them.

I'd rather not get into a semantic debate, so could you please explain 
this in a way that is understandable.

> 
> 
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>Hamilton's rule isn't intended to be used as a discriminator of altruism
>>>and mutualism.  Why should it?  It applies to both cases, and can be
>>>used to predict whether a behaviour can be selected for.
>>
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>Then you admit that because the
>>>sign of c within Hamilton's is
>>>arbitrary then Hamilton's rule
>>>has been consistently misused to say
>>>when OFA or OFM is operating within
>>>the rule? Please answer, yes or
>>>no.
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>No.  One can say if a behaviour is altruism or mutualism by estimating
>>the signs of c (oh, and b - positive c, negative b would be parasitism)
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Here we go around the mulberry bush...
>>You have proven that the sign of c is
>>arbitrary.
> 
> 
> BOH;-
> For deciding whether a behaviour can evolve, yes (as long as the
> inequality in Hamilton's rule holds, then the prediction is that the
> behaviour can invade the population)
> 
> JE:-
> Hamilton's gene can only invade the population
> if it can pass the fertile organism
> level of selection. Yes or no?
> 
Again, this question makes no sense.

> 
>>JE:-
>>How can you say if a behaviour
>>is altruism OR mutualism! ALWAYS it
>>is altruism AND mutualism  and you
>>can never know which!
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> No.  It is altruism if c is positive, and mutualism if c is negative.
> These are mutually exclusive events, so you cannot have both.
> 
> JE:-
> Since you have proven that the sign of c is
> arbitrary within Hamilton's rule then
> it is _impossible_ to know when c is
> positive or negative so it is impossible
> to verify EITHER OFA or OFM within
> Hamilton's rule. 

No.  You go into the real world and measure it.  I don't know if you've 
heard of Karl Popper, but he was very big on the idea that one should 
test theories empirically, i.e. by experiment and observation.

>>>>>>>>JE;-
>>>>>>>>__________________________________
>>>>>>>>please explain how OFM can allow
>>>>>>>>the SELECTION of a REDUCTION in
>>>>>>>>absolute fitness.
>>>>>>>>__________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>BOH:-
>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>By poisoning the environment with a toxin for
which you, and your
>>>>>>>relatives, have limited immunity.  It goes on
in bacteria, where it's
>>>>>>>mediated by a plasmid which as both the genes
for production of the
>>>>>>>toxin, and a gene for resistance to it.  All
you need is a cost of
>>>>>>>resistance, and you have a clear example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>JE:-
>>>>>>>Here a SELECTION for an
>>>>>>>absolute reduction in fitness
>>>>>>>is not occurring. We all agree
>>>>>>>that absolute fitness reduction
>>>>>>>can and does, occur but it is
>>>>>>>not chosen by selection.
>>>>>>>snip<
>>>>>>>The population is predicted to deal
>>>>>>>with these toxins by curtailing
>>>>>>>population growth,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>BOH:-
>>>>>>What is "curtailing population growth" if
not reducing absolute
>>>>>
> fitness?
> 
>>>>>>And at what level is this curtailment acting?
>>>>>
> 

> 
>>JE:-
>>Curtailing population growth IS NOT the same
>>as reducing absolute fitness.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> OK, so what is it?  And please don't insult the English language by
> claiming that it is a cost.  Remember, "to cost" and
"to curtail" are
> verbs.  "A cost" is a noun, but there is no such noun as
"a curtail".
> 
> JE:-
> This is evasive pedantry.
> There is such a thing as
> "a curtailment".
> 
> ___________________________
> Do you understand
> the difference between
> "absolute parental fitness"
> and "population growth"?

Simply the difference between the individual and the population.

> ___________________________
> 
> The curtailment of population
> growth is not the same as a
> _selected_ reduction in
> absolute parental fitness.
> 

To repeat myself: OK, so what is it?

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 2/16/04 3:18:26 PM