John Edser wrote:
>>>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. 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Rubbish.  Because there is no differemce, 
> I can actually be referring to both sides.
> 
> JE:-
> Both sides at once?
> 
Yes.  The only difference is the sign of c, so why can't I?

> ______________________________________________
> 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?
> 
Totally disagree.
> 
> 
>>BOH:-
>>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!
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> I think you're mixing up two issues here.
> 1. Hamilton's rule, I have already outlined how to test this
> 
> JE:-
> You have only outlined a way _not_
> to verify OFA using the rule because
> you assumed both side of the rule to be
> _complimentary_. Obviously, if both sides
> compliment, then no possible position exists
> to refute the _entire_ rule because every
> possible position was covered by it!. Thus 
> rbc was 
> a contesting separate rule and not just 
> complimentary  to rb one half of the _same_ rule refuting the other 
> half, which is what you are suggesting.
> 
What are you on about?  It is possible to have rb _________________________________________
> Only when a term for absolute donor
> fitness is included within the rule can OFA
> be refuted or verified because only here
> can c be absolutely negative or positive. 
> _________________________________________
> 
> Do you agree or disagree?
> 
As I have argued against this view many times, what is to be gained by 
asking it again?


> JE:-
> Here are all the possible positions.
> 
> Proposition:
> Absolute fitness can only be selected
> to be reduced within a population when:
> 
> 1) OFA > OFM
> 2) OFM > OFA
> 3) OFM = OFA
> 4) All of the above
> 5) None of the above
> 
> Please choose which position/positions
> you agree with.
> 
(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:-
>>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.
> 
"If absolute fitness can only be reduced when  OFM < OFA in the 
population..."

> 
>>>>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?
> 
> 
> JE:-
> No reply? This says it all. To be able to
> demonstrate what you wanted, a finite
> time unit was REQUIRED. By avoiding 
> providing a defined time unit you evaded
> any empirical demonstration.
> 
> 
>>BOH:- 
>>The absolute fitness count is clearly ended when the parent dies.
> 
>  
> 
>>>snip<
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Why?
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Well, it's difficult to reproduce when you're dead.
> 
> JE:-
> Really?

Err, yes.

> 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.
> 
Ah.  You're trying to redefine reproduction.

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?


> BOH:-
> 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 1/19/04 3:23:09 PM