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.
> 
The end is whatever the behaviour is for.  The result of the behaviour 
is a change in relative fitnesses of the actor, and any individual that 
it is interacting with.

> 
>>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?
>  
It may, or it may not - it depends on all of the costs and benefits.

Is the evidence coming now?


> JE:-
> 
>>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.
> 
Then please refrain from telling me what I should do.  If it's 
immaterial, then you're wasting bandwidth.

> 
> 
>>>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. 

So are you saying that any help provided by a sterile individual cannot 
change the fitness of the 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?
> 
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.


> 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. 

Rubbish.  a 
> 
> 
>>>>__________________________________
>>>>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:-
>>Obviously, maximised parental fitnesses 
>>cannot always increase every generation
>>but they should trend to such an increase
>>over time. 
> 
> 
>>snip<
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Could you please answer the questions - I think they'll show a 
> contradiction what you were trying to write.  But I might be wrong.
> 
> JE:-
> Please read what I wrote to understand
> that I an not contradicting myself.
> 
> I am maximising MUTUAL absolute fitnesses
> and not just one, isolated absolute 
> fitness. 


> 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.
> 
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"?

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 2/4/04 3:09:04 PM