John Edser wrote:
>>JE:-
>>The only thing which is "obvious" here
>>is your confusion of a point of 
>>non verification with a point of 
>>refutation.
>>The "prediction of whether the altruistic 
>>phenotype is fitter", on however, just a 
>>relative and not an absolute fitness basis
>>may or may not be verified when r,b, and c
>>are calculated. When it isn't verified the
>>proposition stands non verified but _not_,
>>refuted. Refutation requires the observation
>>within nature confirming the anti-thesis. A
>>lack of an observation confirming the thesis 
>>does not refute the thesis.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Right.  And if you observe altruism when rb Hamilton's theory.
> 
> JE:-
> All you were referring to was the (neglected)
> mutualistic side of Hamilton's rule which
> is considered to be a part of the same rule
> and _not_ a total contradiction to the rule. 

No I wasn't.  I actually WAS thinking of the case where c is positive. 
If c is negative (i.e. the act is of benefit to the actor), and b is 
positive, then c reality the mutualistic side absolutely contradicts
> the altruistic side and vice versa. Thus, at
> no time can they both be incorporated as valid 
> parts of the _same_ rule. To do so is like inventing 
> a rule that incorporated the earth as stationary 
> to the sun AND the sun as stationary to the earth. Such 
> a rule cannot be refuted because the causative thesis 
> and anti thesis are both incorporated within the
> same rule, i.e. such a rule is just a typical
> political trick that allows anybody to always
> appear right when in fact, they have suggested nothing
> at all because they have _absolutely_ contradicted 
> themselves. Such absolute contradictions are the cause
> of Epimenides paradox.
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> Do you agree that the mutualistic side of the rule
> absolutely contradicts the altruistic side of it
> because in each case testable cause and affect is 
> 100% reversed?
> ____________________________________________________
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Absolute fitness can be >1 with both
>>organism fitness altruism (OFA) and organism
>>fitness mutualism (OFM)  if OFM >
>>OFA in the population. 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Indeed.  It can also be >1 if OFM > OFA, or if OFM = OFA.
> In particular, it can be >1 if OFM = OFA = 0.
> 
> JE:-
> You must say if you agree or disagree that absolute 
> fitness can be reduced, only when OFM < OFA in the 
> population, i.e. OFA is OFM dependent but not the reverse. 

This must come from a different thread, but it's nice to see that you 
have no objections to my point that absolute fitness can be >1 under a 
wide range of conditions.

As it happens, I don't agree with the point, because there seems no 
reason to impose any limitation.  Why rule out evolutionary suicide?


>>>BOH:-
>>>If the effect of the altruistic phenotype is to reduce the absolute 
>>>fitness below 1, but to increase it's own total (=direct and inclusive) 
>>>fitness, then the proportion of the individuals in the population will 
>>>still increase, and again that is all Hamilton's rule tries to tell us.
> 
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>Great. If a Banker suggests that an investment
>>>in A will provide a higher return than B,
>>>but fails to inform me that he knows A _must_ 
>>>become bankrupt because it was only a pyramid 
>>>scheme, then he is committing fraud. These
>>>schemes, like Hamilton's rule, simply leave
>>>out any  absolute measure, so it is easy to
>>>prove that everybody maintains a high return
>>>until the entire scheme suddenly collapses, which 
>>>it must. Unless an absolute measure is included
>>>within Hamilton rule the anomaly that a gain
>>>at the gene level of selection also produces a
>>>an absolute loss _here_, because it reduces fitness
>>>at "a competing" Darwinian organism level(!) then 
>>>the rule is misused to support organism fitness 
>>>altruism within nature. 
> 
>  
> 
>>BOH:-
>>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.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Yes "always" is the key. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

I snipped it because it didn't provide any demonstration.  All it did 
was say that time is finite.  So?

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 1/5/04 3:14:36 PM