"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> NAS:-
> Okay, i think we got up to here before; let me continue . . . 
> 
> JE:-
> Most of this part of NAS reply to JE is 
> now redundant since JE has dealt with 
> most of these issues in subsequent posts 
> to which NAS has yet to, reply.
> 
> NAS has yet to provide any explanation
> for the constant, _massive_, fitness
> bias for any donor which prefers
> to kin select others and not just itself. 
> The massive fitness increases for the donor
> via rb, remain unaccounted for in c because
> _exactly_ the same resources in both
> c and rb are consumed. I proposed to call 
> this NAS missing mechamism, an "Enron 
> trait". Apparently, this trait has laid 
> hidden within Hamilton's rule for over 
> 50 years, entirely dominating it. NAS 
> has yet to supply a testable logic for 
> the magic inheritance and the magic action 
> of this Enron trait. Just supposing that
> such trait is "a non zero sum game" without 
> any cap, is suggesting that Hamilton's rule 
> can spread an altruistic gene for the
> same reason that fairies can fly.
> 

Let person A have a piano that needs moving, that is just too heavy
for her to lift.  Let person A obtain some benefit if she manages to
have the piano moved.  Enter person B, who can help A shift the piano,
at some small cost to each of the two parties.  Can we agree that the
benefit from having the piano moved *might* be, depending on the
reasons it is being moved, bigger than the cost?  Perhaps even
sufficiently big enough to let relatedness*benefit > cost be true?

> 
> > JE:-
> > Yes, Hamilton's rule assumes gene _fitness_
> > additivity deleting all genetic fitness
> > epistasis but does not assume additivity for
> > his ALTRUISTIC PHENOTYPE. Please confirm or
> > deny that Hamilton's organism altruistic
> > PHENOTYPE was DOMINANT and was assumed to
> > be coded for by Hamilton using just one allele
> > at one locus competing against one wildtype
> > (non altruistic) allele at the same locus.
> >
> 
> NAS
> In an example model, perhaps,..
> 
> JE:-
> I will try to make this
> perfectly clear. I am only addressing
> the most basic formulation of Hamilton's
> rule since I consider a basic flaw in
> logic exists within it. I am happy to
> address additions after but not before,
> this basic flaw is addressed.

This is intellectually dishonest.  If the model you are discussing is
not intended to be general, then it is not surprising that it can be
pulled apart by altering the assumptions.  This is the strawman
approach.  If Hamilton's rule is genuinely flawed, then you have to
demonstrate this with the generalised rule.

For instance, say Hamilton presented a model using the assumption of
haploidy, then you show that it doesn't work for diploidy.  What would
we gain from that?  Certainly not the paradigm shift that you suggest.
---
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 10/21/03 3:13:26 PM