John Edser wrote:

>>>>JE:-
>>>>The insanity of Hamilton's rule is that it does
>>>>not exclude the possibility that as the altruistic
>>>>gene only relatively increases compared to the wildtype
>>>>gene, _both_ genes may be forced to become extinct. 
>>>
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>Why is this insane?
>>
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>It is insane to suggest that just
>>>a relative inclusive fitness gain
>>>can absolutely reduce the freq of 
>>>the altruistic gene within the 
>>>population such that this gene now
>>>heads towards extinction within that
>>>population because of this 
>>>relative "gain". No mechanism of just
>>>a relative fitness gain can produce the 
>>>extinction of the form being supposed to
>>>make that gain within any sane evolutionary
>>>theory because the supposed gain was just 
>>>an loss, i.e. the proposition of a fitness
>>>gain was _refuted_. 
>>
>>
>>BOH:-
>>Now can you actually provide an explanation, rather than just repeating 
>>your position.  My position may well be insane, but you need to provide 
>>an explanation of why it is so, rather than just repeat your view.
>>
>>JE:-
>>Your words above are just Mad Hatter 
>>evasion.
>>My explanation of how just an inclusive
>>fitness gain is not necessarily a gain but 
>>just an absolute loss, entirely refutes the 
>>standard view that Hamilton's inclusive fitness 
>>gain, is always a gain. 
> 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Once more you have not given any explanation.  I'll ask for a final 
> time.  Why is it insane to suggest that there can be selection for an 
> altruistic phenotype, but that this can lead to extinction of the whole 
> population?
> 
> JE:-
> I cannot believe the audacity of the question.
> IF the population becomes extinct, THEN the 
> form "gaining" in inclusive fitness is proven
> to have sustained an absolute fitness loss 
> simply because it no longer exists. 

Thank you for finally giving an answer.
That's fine.  Hamilton's Rule is a rule about relative fitness, not 
absolute fitness

Ergo:
> you have redefined an absolute loss as
> a relative gain just to sustain a false
> theory of fitness. 

No, there is no redefinition.  There is still a relative gain - and no 
statement is made about changes in overall population growth rates (your 
"absolute loss").

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 12/15/03 3:09:37 PM