"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> > JM:-
> > Why the hell not have an 
> > absolute loss, unless there is 
> > some metaphysical objection (benevolent
> > nature?) to that?
>  
> > JE:-
> > Because an absolute fitness loss 
> > refutes the entire rule.
> > [Snip a lot more]
> 
> JM:-
> >snip<
> 
> 
> JM;-
> 1. Hamilton's model predicts an absolute fitness loss - even though 
> those idiots don't recognize or (usually) admit it.
> 
> JE:-
> Not quite. The model fails to exclude an
> an absolute fitness loss and cannot ever do
> so until a general term exists within the rule
> that actually represents absolute fitness
> (rather obviously). An actual, i.e. not just
> a possible absolute fitness loss contradicts
> any claim that a real relative fitness 
> gain, was an actual gain (obviously).
> Thus, just the possibility of an absolute 
> fitness loss being allowed to be passed off 
> as an "inclusive fitness gain" within
> Hamilton's rule, refutes his rule, entirely.
> "Inclusive fitness" is not inclusive
> at all, because it left out total parental 
> fitness which is an absolute fitness measure.
> An absolute measure of Darwinian fitness is the most 
> important measure of fitness within evolutionary 
> theory.
> 

Hi John,

I haven't been keeping up with the Hamilton thread as I was preparing
for and attending a conference. I'm back now, but the thread seems to
have unravelled into a mess of sub-threads. I'm not sure where to pick
up again. Here seems like as good a place as any.

With respect to the above quoted text, doesn't this absolute fitness
loss which you claim is the outcome of kin selection utterly
contradict what you were saying before about Hamilton's rule providing
a free lunch?  I'm confused as to your stance: are you saying that
Hamilton's rule gives a free lunch, or takes your lunch off of you,
for free?

If the former, then cast your mind back to the discussion about
populations not being closed systems in terms of absolute fitness and
resources. There is no free lunch, no magical appearance of new
resources; rather the resources are taken from elsewhere.

If the latter, then I am utterly perplexed as to why you think
Hamilton's rule suggests that kin selection will always reduce the
absolute fitness of the population.  I can think of an example, but
I've had no hint that you are thinking along the same lines. And, in
general, I don't believe that it is the case that application of
Hamilton's rule suggests that populations should reduce their absolute
fitness, either explicitly or implicitly.

Cheers
---
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 12/25/03 8:30:15 PM