John Edser wrote:
> In this thread BOH has to admit (but still
> refuses to do so) that by his own reasoning
> the sign of c remains arbitrary within Hamilton's
> rule. Yet, only +c is OFA (organism fitness
> altruism) and -c  OFM (organism fitness
> mutualism) within the rule. 

That's outside of the rule.  If Mutualism is defined as having a 
negative "cost", then that holds true whether Hamilton is right or wrong.

Nobody can tell
> using Hamilton's rule when OFA or OFM is
> operating. This proves the rule to be arbitrary.

No, it shows that you don't need to know whether OFA or OFM is operating 
to use Hamilton's rule (other than in the sense that you need to know 
the value of c).

To take an analogy, this years my flat has been warmer than outside, no 
matter whether the outside temperature has been above or below zero Celcius.


>>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"?
> 
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.

> 
>>>>BOH:-
>>>>I, at least, don't find this arbitrary.  When one asks
>>>>"Is A better than B", then the comparison of the
value of B relative to
>>>>A is made, not of B with a baseline and A with a baseline.
> 
> 
>>>>JE:-
>>>>Given BOH's logic an absolute selfish gain within
>>>>a relationship can be selected over just a relative
>>>>selfish gain (relative to an absolute mutual gain), even
>>>>if this absolute selfish gain destroys a mutual
>>>>relationship which has been selected to keep "a
>>>>baseline" of mutual but not necessarily equal
>>>>mutual gains, stable. I _strongly_ suggest that such an
>>>>event cannot be naturally selected for.
> 
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>I think You need to provide evidence to support your strong suggestion
>>>(evidence, not argument).
> 
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>Do you disagree that OFM
>>>provides a parental absolute fitness
>>>increase to mutualised parents that
>>>is much higher than these parents can expect
>>>by just going it alone?
> 
> 
> 
>>BOH:-
>>It may, or it may not - it depends on
>>all of the costs and benefits.
>>Is the evidence coming now?
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>It is hopeless to bring in
>>evidence if we cannot agree
>>on what the evidence is
>>supposed to verify/refute!
>>Science is observation _and_
>>interpretation.
>>Why should an OFM association
>>be selected for if it didn't
>>increase the total fitness
>>counts of parents who participate?
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Is this relevant?
> 
> JE:-
> Absolutely. I put forward a
> hypothesis of how OFM
> works. 

Ah.  You're putting forward a hypothesis. So, no evidence.


> BOH:-
> I was objecting to your suggestion that selfishness
> cannot be selected for even is a population of mutualists.  How the
> mutualists got that way isn't relevant.  The point is that you have to
> demonstrate that a selfish phenotype cannot invade such a population.
> 
> JE:-
> How the  mutualists got that way is
> absolutely relevant to the argument
> that cheating is naturally selected
> _against_ within OFM. 

Why?



>>JE:-
>>Dear oh dear, I am not telling you what
>>you should do,
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> You wrote: "Really, you should break your post modern habit of only
> suggesting something is relative...", which seemed to be directed at me.
> 
> JE:-
> It was. 

Thank you.

> To sbe readers:
> BOH has failed to answer my question,
> yet again. 

What question?

Thus we are all forced to ask why
> BOH is evading such a simple question. The
> answer is: Hamilton defined OFM and OFA
> ONLY using the sign of c. For Hamilton
> rb> +c is OFA  and rb>-c is OFM. Yet,
> to BOH's embarrassment, he has proven
> that the sign of c is arbitrary within
> Hamilton's rule.
> 
I'm not embarrassed.  Actually, I think it's a strength of the rule that 
it isn't limited to just a c of one sign - it actually coveres a wider 
range of situations than Hamilton was originally concerned with.

> 
> 
>>>>>JE:-
>>>>>None of the purported
>>>>>examples "of altruism in nature"
>>>>>are verifications
>>>>>of OFA because all of them are
>>>>>consistent with OFM. Please provide
>>>>>just one example that is not consistent
>>>>>with OFM.
> 
> 
>>>>BOH:-
>>>>*sigh*  Eusociality in hymenoptera.  But you don't seem to
accept that
>>>>as an example, even in species where worker ants are
capable of changing
>>>>to reproductive forms, but don't.
> 
> 
>>>>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?
> 
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.

> Hamilton supposed an independent selfish
> gene level of selection that could cause
> OFA when it competed and won against
> Darwin’s independent organism level.
> This was supposed to be verified when
> OFA was observed within nature. It is
> not supposed to be verified when OFM is
> observed. Note that no points of refutation
> exists within Hamilton’s rule for either.

But Hamilton's rule isn't designed to say if mutualism or altruism is 
acting, only give the conditions under which altruism can evolve.



>>JE:-
>>You flatly refuse to answer
>>my question which was: How does HAMILTON
>>define OFA and OFM within Hamilton's
>>rule because you will have to admit two
>>things:-
>>1) Hamilton defined OFA ONLY using the +
>>sign of c and OFM ONLY using a - sign of c.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> I'm not sure if that's how Hamilton define altruism and mutualism, but
> that corresponds to the usual concepts.
> 
> JE:-
> "not sure"!
> Please do not insult sbe reader's
> intelligence. Hamilton defined
> OFA as any +c and OFM as any -c
> within Hamilton's rule, 

I wrote "not sure" because I did not have any of Hamilton's work to hand 
to check this up.  I was simply admitting that in this respect I was 
ignorant.


> 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.
> 
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)

> 
> 
> 
>>>>>>__________________________________
>>>>>>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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>>3) Mutualising selection can select
>>>an individual to lower expected absolute fitness
>>>as a risk factor for mostly, a consistent, _massive_
>>>gain. The risk is taken because it is small
>>>cost to pay. Those that don't take the risk are
>>>selected against those that do because their
>>>absolute fitnesses are consistently lower.
> 
> 
>>BOH:-
>>This is the nearest you get to answering the question, but it's still
>>not clear - is "curtailing population growth" the same as
"reducing
>>absolute fitness"?
>>
>>JE:-
>>No, "curtailing population growth" is a cost for a
>>mutualised gain.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> I'm sorry, that makes no sense.  "Curtailing population growth" is an
> action - it's a verbal phrase.  "A cost for a mutualised gain" is a
> thing - a nounal phrase.  The curtailment is, according to you, the
> predicted action that a population will take.  A cost would be the price
> paid (metaphorically) for an action.
> 
> JE:-
> You NEARLY got it: -
> "A cost would be the price
> paid (metaphorically) for an action"
> 
> What was the action that
> constitutes a price that is
> selected to be paid?
> 
You, alas appear not to have got it. An action is not a cost.

Could you please just avoid the semantic confusions, and let us get back 
to what I was trying to understand abot your statement (above).  Please 
give a simple yes/no answer: Is "curtailing population growth" the same 
as "reducing absolute fitness"?

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
---
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 2/10/04 11:49:54 AM