John Edser wrote:
>>>JE:-
>>>Exactly, but this is my argument _against_
>>>Hamilton. You cannot have relative temperature
>>>without an assumption of asolute temperature.
>>>Nought temperature is 0 degrees Kelvin. This
>>>point has never been reached but provides an
>>>absolute measure of temperature. Without it,
>>>just a relative celcius measure in is
>>>meaningless.
>>>Hamilton's rules attemptes to invalidly
>>>subsitute a relative measure for an
>>>absolute measure.
> 
> 
>>BOH:-
>>No it dosn't.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Rubbish. If selection at just Hamilton's gene level
>>can be supposed to cause fitness altruism at the
>>Darwinian organism level, then gene fitness
>>and not organism fitness is being touted as
>>as THE ABSOLUTE measure of fitness, isn't it?
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> The absolute measure of fitness maybe, but not the measure of absolute 
> fitness.
> 
> JE:-
> How is the "absolute measure of fitness" 
> not equal to "the measure of absolute 
> fitness" ?
> 
The adjective is in a different place.  :-)

Absolute fitness has a specific definition - it's the assymptotic growth 
rate (assymptotic with density), and is equivalent to R_0 that's used in 
epidemiology.

It's not clear to me if an absolute measure of fitness exists.  Fitness 
is always context dependent - even absolute fitness depends on the 
environmental context.  So it's difficult to see how ant measure of 
fitness can be said to be absolute.


>>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.
> 
The basic population genetic equations for the change in frequency of a 
gene.
> 
>>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_. 

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.

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 12/9/03 8:34:47 PM