John Edser wrote:
>>>>JE:-
>>>>The only thing which is "obvious" here
>>>>is your confusion of a point of 
>>>>non verification with a point of 
>>>>refutation.
>>>>The "prediction of whether the altruistic 
>>>>phenotype is fitter", on however, just a 
>>>>relative and not an absolute fitness basis
>>>>may or may not be verified when r,b, and c
>>>>are calculated. When it isn't verified the
>>>>proposition stands non verified but _not_,
>>>>refuted. Refutation requires the observation
>>>>within nature confirming the anti-thesis. A
>>>>lack of an observation confirming the thesis 
>>>>does not refute the thesis.
>>>
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>Right.  And if you observe altruism when rb>>Hamilton's theory.
>>
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>All you were referring to was the (neglected)
>>>mutualistic side of Hamilton's rule which
>>>is considered to be a part of the same rule
>>>and _not_ a total contradiction to the rule. 
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>No I wasn't.  I actually WAS thinking of the case where c is positive. 
>>If c is negative (i.e. the act is of benefit to the actor), and b is 
>>positive, then c 
> 
>>JE:-
>>What is the difference between
>>a reduced positive c and a negative c?
>>If c was an abolute measure of fitness
>>then yes, a real difference exists. However
>>c is only a relative fitness cost and not
>>an absolute fitness cost, so what is the
>>difference?
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> As far as the rule is concerned, none.
> 
> JE:-
> Then you can only be referring to 
> the mutualistic side of the rule, 
> as I suggested. 

Rubbish.  Because there is no differemce, I can actually be referring to 
both sides.

Thus altruism is not
> refuted it is only, not verified. You 
> cannot refute a view with just a relative
> measure.
> 
> BOH;-
> My statement still stands: ... 
> if you observe altruism when rb theory.
> 
> JE:-
> No, you can only fail to verify altruism
> if both sides of the same rule are
> suggested to be complimentary,
> which is what everybody is claiming. I
> claim that they are contradictory separating
> Hamilton's rule into two entirely separate 
> rules where only one can be true. One side
> _must_ refute in favour of the other. If they
> are complimentary, neither side can refute
> the other they can only non verify each other!
> 
I think you're mixing up two issues here.
1. Hamilton's rule, I have already outlined how to test this

2. Whether a behaviour is altruistic or mutualistic.  The statement 
"Behaviour X is altruistic" can be tested by estimating c.  If it is 
positive, then the behaviour is altruistic, if it is negative it it 
mutualistic.

> BOH:-
> So, no the mutualistic and altruistic sides of the rule don't contradict 
> each other.
> 
> JE:-
> Then no refutation of altruism is possible.
> When everything is relative nothing is
> refutable.
> 
Not true.  Se above....

>>>>JE:-
>>>>Absolute fitness can be >1 with both
>>>>organism fitness altruism (OFA) and organism
>>>>fitness mutualism (OFM)  if OFM >
>>>>OFA in the population. 
>>>
>  
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>Indeed.  It can also be >1 if OFM > OFA, or if OFM = OFA.
>>>In particular, it can be >1 if OFM = OFA = 0.
>>
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>You must say if you agree or disagree that absolute 
>>>fitness can be reduced, only when OFM < OFA in the 
>>>population, i.e. OFA is OFM dependent but not the reverse. 
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>This must come from a different thread, but it's nice to see that you 
>>have no objections to my point that absolute fitness can be >1 under a 
>>wide range of conditions.
>>
>>JE:-
>>Sorry if I cut and pasted to the wrong thread.
>>We were only employing the standard non testable definition 
>>of absolute fitness and not my testable definition. 
>>You must say if you agree or disagree that absolute 
>>fitness can be reduced, only when OFM < OFA in the 
>>population. Is this question quite clear? Please 
>>answer. 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Why?  I've lost the thread totally.  As it happens, I have to disagree 
> with this, simply because if I agree, then I'm saying that absolute 
> fitness can only be reduced when there is mutualism or altruism. 
> 
> JE:-
> Not "mutualism or altruism",  mutualism AND altruism. 
> 
No, the "or" stands.

> If absolute fitness can only be reduced when  OFM < OFA in the 
> population and not when OFM > OFA then the absolute fitness reduction
> can only be caused by OFA because OFA is OFM dependent, i.e.
> IF no OFM THEN no OFA. However OFM can exist without OFA
> because OFM cannot cause a selected reduction in 
> absolute fitness.  In simple terms OFA is entirely a
> subset of OFM. It is all rather obvious, isn't it....
> 
No.  You start by an assumption which is plainly silly, as I pointed out 
in my last reply.

>>>BOH:-
>>>And it appears that you know of no demonstration either.
>>
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>Typically, you just snipped the answer to the
>>>proposition because it did not suit you.
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>I snipped it because it didn't provide any demonstration.  All it did 
>>was say that time is finite.  So?
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>So.. when, in time, is any absolute fitness
>>count _completed_ using the standard definition
>>that you provided?
> 
> 
> BOH:- 
> The absolute fitness count is clearly ended when the parent dies.
> 
> 
>>snip<
> 
> 
> JE:-
> Why?
> 
Well, it's difficult to reproduce when you're dead.

I'm keeping this in, because I don't want to loose track of where the 
argument is going:
"Only if you can demonstrate that altruism _always_ leads to a reduction
in absolute fitness so that it is below 1.  I have seen no such
demonstration."
In order to demonstrate this, one needs to demonstrate that there is no
such counter-example.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Rolf Nevanlinna Institute
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 1/13/04 3:02:33 PM