John Edser wrote:

>>BOH:-
>>Is this a problem?  
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Yes, an ENORMOUS one for the
>>altruistic side of the rule.
> 
> 
>>BOH:-
>>the purpose of Hamilton's rule is to suggest one 
>>mechanism by which altruism can evolve.  
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Yes: specifically selection at the gene
>>level can contradict selection at the
>>organism level forcing organism fitness
>>altruism as a verification of the proposed
>>process. However no point of refutation
>>was ever included for Hamilton's process. 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> The refutation is obvious - calculate r, b, and c and see if the 
> prediction of whether the altruistic phenotype is fitter holds with 
> observations of altruism.
> 
> 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.
> 
Right.  And if you observe altruism when rb>JE:-
>>have provide it and refuted Hamilton's
>>proposed process for the evolution of
>>altruistic genes in nature. Of course, this 
>>does not make me very popular. I can't imagine
>>why. Neo Darwinists are unbiased lovers of
>>the scientific truth.. aren't they....
> 
> 
>>BOH:-
>>As long as the absolute fitness 
>>remains greater than 1, then there one will still observe the species 
>>with its altruistic phenotype, and that is all Hamilton's rule tries to 
>>tell us.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>If you are using the conventional 
>>view of "absolute fitness" how can
>>this be >1 and still require organism 
>>fitness altruism i.e. exclude fitness
>>mutualism as causative?!?
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> I don't understand your point - absolute fitness can be >1 with or 
> without altruism.
> 
> JE:-
> Absolute fitness can be >1 with both
> organism fitness altruism (OFA) and organism
> fitness mutualism (OFM)  if OFM >
> OFA in the population. 

Indeed.  It can also be >1 if OFM > OFA, or if OFM = OFA.  In 
particular, it can be >1 if OFM = OFA = 0.


>>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. 

And it appears that you know of no demonstration either.

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 12/27/03 8:11:28 PM