"John Edser"  wrote in
news:bun8h7$1sac$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

I am just going to make a few comments, because further discussion with 
you is obviously futile, since you refuse to be confused by facts.
 
> JE:-
> Eusociality only appears to verify Hamilton's rule! Indeed,
> the distorted haplodiploid Hymenopterans were originally
> thought to fit Hamilton's rule like a glove. This example
> was trotted ad nausium and with triumph, almost every time 
> the rule was mentioned. Somebody "forgot" to include common,
> multiple male matings of the Hymenopteran Queen making a
> mockery of Hamilton's explanation re: the evolution of
> their haplodiploid system. The Isopterans which
> only have an ordinary diploid system were known in Hamilton's 
> time. No haplodiploidy exists here so Hamilton was
> not verified. The same applies to Naked Mole rats. In all
> cases NON Hamiltonian view remains verified. This assumes
> that all young that are sterile have just zero fitness to
> start with and have evolved as body part extensions
> of a parent. This means they cannot be altruistic because
> they have zero fitness to give away. Only this view is
> consistent with the simple fact of logic that if genes
> are selected at the gene level then genes trapped in
> sterile forms can only have zero gene fitness at that 
> level, also. However, Hamilton allocated a fitness to 
> a sterile form that was then imagined to be "given away" 
> at the organism level. Such a view was absurd. Any
> sterile form has zero fitness and thus zero fitness
> to give away, period. 


Unfortunately for your argument, the young naked mole rats that do not 
reproduce are not sterile.
 
> JE:-
> They verify organism fitness mutualism (OFM)
> and not organism fitness altruism (OFA)
> because the cost was an investment
> and NOT just an altruistic donation.
> You have to prove that the cost was
> not an investment for a future gain.


That is precisely what the discussion in the article I cited was about. 
The article offered evidence that you are wrong. You don't want to 
discuss the actual article. 

(snip remaining discussion)

The one part of my post that you did _not_ include in the remaining 
discussion that I snipped predicted that you would not actually discuss 
real research. My prediction was correct. 

Yours,

Bill Morse
---
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 1/23/04 6:56:02 AM