John Edser wrote:
>>>>JE:-
>>>>Relatedness r is automatically included. 
>>>>The problem here, is only concerned with 
>>>>how you determine the sign of c, when c is 
>>>>only a _relative_ cost. The sign remains
>>>>arbitrary as long as absolute fitness is
>>>>excluded as a general term from the rule.
>>>
>  
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>No, Hamilton's rule is designed to compare the cost and benefits of a 
>>>behaviour, so the costs and benefits are relative to not carrying out 
>>>the behaviour. 
>>
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>Relative to exactly WHAT?
>>
>  
> 
>>BOH:-
>>"...to not carrying out the behaviour".
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>I do understand that (!), but such behaviour
>>is _not_ an end in itself, is it! Please define 
>>the end that the behaviour is supposed to achieve.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> The end is whatever the behaviour is for.
> 
> 
>>snip<
> 
> 
> JE:-
> This end MUST BE DEFINED in
> an unambiguous way. Please
> provide either Hamilton's
> or your own definition of
> it.
>  
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.

> 
>>>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 observation _and_ 
> interpretation.
> 
> Why should an OFM association 
> be selected for if it didn't
> increase the total fitness 
> counts of parents who participate?
> 
Is this relevant?  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.

>>>Really, you should break
>>>your post modern habit of only
>>>suggesting something is relative
>>>but then omit, to what it
>>>is relative.
>>>Hamilton did not
>>>allow rb as "a relative cost".
>>>Neither Hamilton or the 
>>>Neo Darwinian establishment will
>>>allow rb to be a cost for c, when
>>>of course it has to be when c becomes 
>>>negative.
>>
> 
>>JE:-
>>Err, I just did.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>You are not W.D. Hamilton
>>(I hope)! What you or I think
>>is immaterial to this part of
>>the discussion. We are discussing
>>Hamilton's rule, not BOH's rule
>>or JE's rule.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Then please refrain from telling me what I should do.  
> If it's immaterial, then you're wasting bandwidth.
> 
> JE:-
> Dear oh dear, I am not telling you what
> you should do, 

You wrote: "Really, you should break your post modern habit of only 
suggesting something is relative...", which seemed to be directed at me.

I am simply asking you
> IF HAMILTON allowed rb as "a relative cost",
> NOT myself or yourself, just HAMILTON.
> Please answer the question!
> 
You also included "the Neo Darwinian establishment" in your statement, 
so it wasn't limited to Hamilton.

>>>>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. 

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:-
>>>Irrespective of how I define
>>>OFA, please answer the question.
>>
> 
> 
>>BOH:-
>>I can't if I don't know what you mean by OFA.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Untrue. You answer it by using
>>Hamilton's assumption. Surely
>>this is obvious?
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> No, because I've had enough discussion with you to be aware that what I 
> mean by a term and what you mean may be totally different.  If I don't 
> check what you mean, then we end up talking across each other.
> 
> JE:-
> This is why I asked you what
> HAMILTON meant!
> 
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>It is absurd to have -c and +c within
>>the same rule because this reverses
>>cause and affect within the rule
>>allowing the _same_ rule to contain its
>>thesis and anti-thesis. 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Rubbish.  a counter-example?
> 
> JE:-
> You can't see it can you? Your example
> proves that the sign of c is arbitrary
> within Hamilton's rule. The fact that
> a that c and be +c or -c unless K is appended
> to the rule. 

And?  So what?  Isn't it better to have a rule that covers a large 
number of cases?

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.

I'm not sure if that's how Hamilton define altruism and mutualism, but 
that corresponds to the usual concepts.

> 2) Without K, the sign of c is arbitrary!
> 
> Thus Hamilton's rule cannot discriminate
> between OFA and OFM proven by your own
> example.
> 
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.

>>>>>__________________________________
>>>>>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. 

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.

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/
---
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 2/5/04 3:53:49 PM