***** Continued From Previous Message *****
sed within
> > > TESTABLE theories of either.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > I don't agree with the first statement, and i don't understand what
> > you are trying to say with the second.  Group selection and kin
> > selection are mathematically equivalent.
>  
> > JE:-
> > I am sure the
> > accountants at Enron pleaded
> > the same, _amazing_ level of ignorance.
> > Cause and affect do not
> > necessarily exist within just
> > mathematical models, e.g. accounting columns
> > etc, but MUST exist within any testable
> > theory from which all such models are 
> > simplified. Within just modelling mathematics, 
> > cause and affect can be 100% reversed
> > but here, nobody may even notice!{at}#
> > Fraudsters have known this for years.
> > I am sure the Enron accountants were
> > _very_ good at maths and never made a 
> > single _mathematical_ error. They 
> > just turned red ink into black ink
> > like Jesus turning water into wine.
> > We should all rejoice, they worked 
> > a miracle but sadly, nobody was 
> > grateful. In the same way
> > Hamilton created the miracle of
> > allowing organism fitness altruism
> > within Darwinian evolutionary theory
> > but here, everbody was grateful, except
> > myself (or so it seems).
> 
> NAS:-
> So, where does the reversal of cause and effect come into the group
> selection / kin selection disparity?
> 
> JE:-
> Only kin selection switches a KNOWN INDEPENDENT
> organism fitness into just a DEPENDENT organism
> fitness within one rb, gene centric kin
> selective TOTAL (see discussion at beginning
> of this post). The process of just switching a
> known, testable independent fitness into
> a dependent fitness within an over 
> simplified model, totally reverses cause and 
> affect. This is why Hamilton's logic can only
> allow organism fitness altruism within nature, if
> and only if, his SUPPOSED independent gene level 
> of selection actually existed within nature. 
> This level does NOT exist within nature and zero 
> FERTILE organisms are fitness dependent within 
> nature. Neo Darwinians are living in Alice In
> Wonderland if they think that Hamilton's 
> views are REAL.

Or maybe you have just misunderstood the meaning of b, c and r, and
hence the validity of r b > c . . .
> 
> Group selection incorrectly assumes
> that an independent grouped fitness level
> can compete and win against an independent
> organism fitness level which is always logically 
> below the group level. Such an event is impossible 
> because the organism level is ALWAYS the FIRST 
> INDEPENDENT level of selection within this multilevel
> _because_ it is situated below the group level.
> Thus the organism level is always selected before 
> the organism group level, even can be. All selection at 
> the group level can do is go with and not against, 
> selection at the organism level. When group selection 
> attempts to contradict selection at the organism 
> level then _both_ levels lose out so natural selection,
> acting firstly at the organism level
> selects against such an event. In extremes 
> this may require the removal of an entire population. 
> Despite superficial appearances, the removal of
> one entire population is NOT group selective,
> it is _strictly_ Darwinian organism selective.
> 

Whether you partition fitness into within group and between group
components or simply collapse all selection at all levels down to the
individual level is a personal, arbitrary choice.  Mathematically,
they are equivalent.  One is not *wrong* and one is not *right*; they
are equally valid ways of looking at things, and they are not
contradictory.
 
> Thus, both group selection and Hamiltonian
> kin selection allow organism fitness altruism,
> but for entirely different, theoretical reasons.
> As far as Darwinism is concerned allowing an
> independent gene level of selection to force
> organism fitness altruism within nature refutes 
> Darwinism, so only one of these views can be true 
> within nature. Also, allowing the group level to be 
> the first independent level, also refutes Darwinism
> so again, only one of these views can be a truth
> of nature. Please note that the simple principle of 
> natural selection is not the same as a proposed 
> theory of evolution by natural selection.

See above
---
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 11/11/03 3:21:29 PM