John Edser wrote:
> 
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>Both sides at once?
> 
>  
> 
>>BOH:-
>>Yes.  The only difference is the sign of c, so why can't I?
> 
>  
> 
>>JE:-
>>If you "can actually be referring to both sides" at once then
>>both sides of Hamilton's rule are actually being operated
>>simultaneously. Since the rule can only be operated by
>>one problem at any moment in time, then no difference
>>actually exists between c and -c for any problem. Thus
>>the rule is arbitrary re: costs where costs define which
>>side of the rule is operating.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> No it's not.  You seem to have forgotten that there is an
"rb" term in 
> Hamilton's rule too.
> 
> 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.
> 
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.  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.

> 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. 
> 
But you still have a relative cost (rb) on the other side.
> 
> 
>>>______________________________________________
>>>Darwinism _prohibits_ OFA
>>>because selection only acts at an independent
>>>organism level. Hence the need for Hamilton's 
>>>rule that moved selection to only acting at 
>>>an independent gene level, causing OFA.
>>>______________________________________________
>>>Do you agree or disagree?
> 
> 
>>BOH:-
>>Totally disagree.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Please explain how Darwinism, which
>>_only_ counts organisms, can allow
>>organism fitness altruism.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> I'm not sure that Darwinism "_only_ counts organisms"..
> 
> JE:-
> Please supply quotes that indicate
> that Darwin did count something else
> other than organisms in the theory 
> he submitted for publication.
> 
> BOH:-
> ...,and it seems a 
> problem of historical interest only. 
> 
> JE:-
> Evasive nonsense.
> 
> BOH:-
> And if Darwinism does prohibit 
> PFA, isn't that a reason to reject 
> the theory, as there are plenty of 
> examples of altruism in nature?
> 
> 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.
> 
*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.
  >
> 
> 
>>______________________________________________
>>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? 

How do you define OFA?


>>__________________________________
>>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. 

Rubbish.

The
> population is predicted to deal 
> with these toxins by curtailing
> population growth, 

What is "curtailing population growth" if not reducing absolute fitness? 
  And at what level is this curtailment acting?


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 1/26/04 3:13:03 PM