John Edser wrote:

>>JE:-
>>Of course "there is still a relative gain"!{at}#$%
>>However such a "gain" remains entirely _arbitrary_
>>if the absolute fitness losses for the same gene 
>>are not included. Surely this is just obvious?
> 
> 
> 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. 

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.

I
> 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?!?
> 
I don't understand your point - absolute fitness can be >1 with or 
without altruism.

And nothing I have written excludes mutualism as a mechanism - Hamilton 
was not trying to suggest that kin selection was the only mechanism by 
which altruism can evolve.

> 
> 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. 

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.

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 12/23/03 8:25:54 PM