John Edser wrote:

> JE:-
> Can I suggest using the defintion of
> parental absolute fitness that I
> have provided for over 4 years,
> to which I refer to here, that
> can be proven to be testable? 
> 
> While I respect your right
> to define absolute fitness the standard
> non testable way, please repect my right 
> to redefine it differently, i.e. in a
> testable way, so that you can at least
> refute what I say even if I cannot refute
> (or verify!) what you say?
> 
As long as you make it clear every time that you use it that you're not 
using the standard definition.

> 
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>I agree.  And as Hamilton was only trying to answer the question about
>>>relative fitness, that's all he needed.
>>
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>"that's all he needed"!{at}#$%^&*!
>>>Do you also agree that any rule that
>>>only includes a general term for
>>>relative fitness but utterly fails
>>>to include within it a general term
>>>for absolute fitness is just an arbitrary
>>>rule?
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>No.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Please provide an example
>>that is not Hamilton's rule.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> The basic population genetic equations for the change in frequency of a 
> gene.
> 
> JE:-
> Please provide an example of a
> basic population genetics equation, that
> is also a _rule_, that does not contain
> a general absolute term.
> 
I'm sorry, they all seem to be theorems and laws.

> 
>>>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. 


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?

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 12/11/03 8:31:24 PM