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. 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> 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 
> 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?
> 
As far as the rule is concerned, none.  My statement still stands: ... 
if you observe altruism when rb>>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. 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> 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.
> 
> JE:-
> Sorry if I cut and pasted to the wrong thread.
> 
> We were only employing the standard non testable definition 
> of absolute fitness and not my testable definition. 
> 
> You must say if you agree or disagree that absolute 
> fitness can be reduced, only when OFM < OFA in the 
> population. Is this question quite clear? Please 
> answer. 
> 
Why?  I've lost the thread totally.  As it happens, I have to disagree 
with this, simply because if I agree, then I'm saying that absolute 
fitness can only be reduced when there is mutualism or altruism.  This 
is absurd, as it says that absolute fitness can only be increased in 
non-social organisms.

>>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.
> 
> 
> JE:-
> 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?
> 
The absolute fitness count is clearly ended when the parent dies.  So?

To remind us (or me at least):, this came from this comment by me:
"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 1/10/04 12:40:06 AM