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. 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Thank you for finally giving an answer.
> That's fine.  Hamilton's Rule is a rule about 
> relative fitness, not  absolute fitness.
> 
> JE:-
> "Finally giving an answer"?!?
> I have been posting this "answer"
> for over 4 years. Are you so nieve
> that you think that only Hamilton's
> Rule suffers from the absurd deletion 
> of any testable absolute measure, within 
> Neo Darwinism?
> 
No, I am neither a handgrip, or a clenched hand.

> 
> BOH:-
>  There is still a relative gain - and no 
> statement is made about changes in overall population growth rates (your 
> "absolute loss").
> 
> 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?
> 
Is this a problem?  the purpose of Hamilton's rule is to suggest one 
mechanism by which altruism can evolve.  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.

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. 
  Of course, the population will eventually go extinct, but in order to 
understand the dynamics, you need Hamilton's rule to explain why the 
altruistic phenotype increased in proportion.  You also need some 
population dynamic theory to explain the process of extinction, of course.

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 12/19/03 6:17:46 AM