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?
> 
"...to not carrying out the behaviour".

> 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.
> 
I think You need to provide evidence to support your strong suggestion 
(evidence, not argument).

> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Units of c are all in
>>normal Darwinian reproductions _maximally_ 
>>related r=0.5 to the donor with normal sex. 
>>The value cmax is the highest positive cost 
>>which however, only allows zero normal reproductions 
>>within rbmax. Thus rbmax only produces a sterile 
>>form so it is prohibited. The value cmax is just the
>>hidden absolute assumption within the rule. As 
>>a _negative_ cost (a negative cost is not a cost
>>it is a gain so the term "cost" is just self 
>>contradictory reversing cause an affect within 
>>the rule) it represents the total number of
>>organisms that the donor could have reproduced in one 
>>population without any kin selection. Unless cmax as
>>a NON COST is included within Hamilton's rule
>>it is impossible to tell the absolute difference 
>>between rb>c and rb>included it as K:
>>
>>		rb>K-c
>>
>>Now the absolute cost and the sign of c can
>>be determined. 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> But you still have a relative cost (rb) on the other side.
> 
> JE:-
> Relative to exactly WHAT?
> 
As stated above:
"...to not carrying out the behaviour".

Please read what I write.

> 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.
> 
Err, I just did.



>>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.

Are you saying that a sterile form cannot act to help a related individual?


>>>______________________________________________
>>>Do you agree or disagree that:
>>>No possible position exists
>>>to refute the _entire_ rule because every
>>>possible position was covered by it.
>>>______________________________________________
>>>
>>>Please answer the question.
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>I disagree, because if you have an altruistic behaviour, and you measure 
>>r, b, and c, and show that rb 
> 
>>JE:-
>>ONLY the sign of c CAN determine if OFM or OFA
>>is operating within Hamilton's rule. As you wrote:
>>"It is possible to have rb>negative" so how can you determine if OFA was
>>NOT operating? 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> How do you define OFA?
> 
> JE:-
> Irrespective of how I define
> OFA, please answer the question.

I can't if I don't know what you mean by OFA.

> Is it not a fact that only
> the sign of c can determine
> when OFA or OFM is operating
> within Hamilton's rule. 
> Yes or No?
> 
That, of course, depends on what you mean by OFA.



> ________________________________________
> OFA is a selected reduction 
> of parental absolute fitness. 

Thank you - at last your definition.  In this case, under your 
definition of OFA, you have to determine "parental absolute fitnesses" 
before and after the putative OFA operates to see if it is OFA.  A 
reduction in "parental absolute fitness" may or may not equate to a 
negative c.


>>>__________________________________
>>>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. 

Could you please answer the questions - I think they'll show a 
contradiction what you were trying to write.  But I might be wrong.

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 2/3/04 3:14:50 PM