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.
> 
No it's not.  You seem to have forgotten that there is an "rb" term in 
Hamilton's rule too.

> 
>>______________________________________________
>>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.
> 
I'm not sure that Darwinism "_only_ counts organisms", and it seems a 
problem of historical interest only.  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?


> ______________________________________________
> 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.
> 
I disagree, because if you have an altruistic behaviour, and you measure 
r, b, and c, and show that rb BOH:-
> It is possible to have rb negative.  
> 
> JE:-
> Yes, this is why rb non verification! You cannot tell by just looking 
> at c which side of the rule is operating. But c
> is the only point of diagnosis re: what side of the
> rule is operating! Thus the difference between
> OFA and OFM remains arbitrary within Hamilton's rule.
> 
> BOH:-
> If c is begative, then you would have to have a negative b,
> 
> JE:-
> When rb > -c then b remains "positive".
> 
Not necessarily - the "benefit" could still be negative, and the 
inequality still hold.



> BOH:-
> (5)  I see no reason why the possibility of a reduction in absolute 
> fitness should be constrained by the types of interactions between 
> individuals.
> 
> JE:- 
> Oh really?
> 
> __________________________________
> please explain how OFM can allow
> the SELECTION of a REDUCTION in
> absolute fitness.
> __________________________________
> 
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:-
>>>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....
>>
> 
>>BOH:- 
>>No.  You start by an assumption which is plainly silly as I pointed out 
>>in my last reply.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>I entirely disagree.	 
>>Please quote this "silly" assumption
>>that I am supposed to have made.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> "If absolute fitness can only be reduced when  OFM < OFA in the 
> population..."
> 
> JE:-
> I refer to absolute fitness being
> SELECTED to be reduced. This remains
> impossible within OFM but possible
> within OFA. Do you agree or disagree?
> 
I disagree.  This things were discussed in the 70s, and lead to ideas 
about r- and K-selection.  r- selection is (in essence) your idea, of 
maximising the number of reproductive offspring.  K-selection is about 
producing offspring that will survive better in their environment (at 
either immature or adult stages of their life).  If there is a trade-off 
between the two, you can get a reduction in absolute fitness when hte 
population density is high (i.e. around carrying capacity).



>>JE:-
>>ONLY when infertile forms are allowed as valid 
>>units of fitness. These infertile forms can lie
>>dormant for years _after_ a form dies and are
>>not counted as valid units of fitness within
>>Darwinism. This being the case, Darwinian parents
>>can reproduce _fitness_ units after they have died. 
>>This event is when an infertile form becomes fertile
>>AFTER the parent has died. Such an event is not
>>possible within neo Darwinism because genes are
>>defined to have reproduced when they enter the
>>next organism generation, fertile or infertile.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Ah.  You're trying to redefine reproduction.
> 
> JE:-
> Trying? Reproduction within Neo Darwinism 
> has been transfigured as the replication of FITNESS 
> units: 

In biology, reproduction is the production of offspring.  I'm not aware 
of any transfiguration within evolutionary biology.

GENES over organism generations. As a professional
> in the field I would have thought that you would
> have known that. Hamilton's rule, the subject
> of this thread is about GENE FITNESS and NOT
> ORGANISM REPRODUCTION because he is only counting
> reproduced genes (over however organism generations 
> and not gene generations) where each of these
> genes is one fitness unit.
> 
> BOH:-
> Can we assume that we can agree on a time when the fitness count stops, 
> can you go on to show the next step of your demonstration?
> 
> JE:-
> No, time remains _biologically_ arbitrary.
> You have to say the point in the BIOLOGICAL
> cycle that your finite definition of time, 
> represents.
> 
In that case, explain where the time should be, and let us move on.

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 1/22/04 3:07:23 PM