Tim Tyler 


> > AIUI, ants and bees and such use various pheromones
> > extensively, not for just simple primitive communication and
> > sex etc., but to also help organize their societies into
> > various classes. Why shouldn't humans also have such an
> > analogous genetic program/mandate?

> TT:-
> It sounds rather like the plan of breeding for the trait of
> having more than the average number of children.
> If you could do it the mutation would sweep through the population -
> and soon the population would be back where it started again - since
> the fecund organisms would be forced into competition with their
> cousins.

JE:- 
The mutation can only "sweep through the population"
if genes are not just locked up within sterile immatures
(I would have thought that this was just obvious).
This being the case, having "more than the average 
number of children" is _not_ sufficient. You must raise
more of these children to fertile adulthood, i.e. not just
have them. Most of biology is involved in this complex 
operation. Deleting/ignoring/omitting this crucial step
in basic biology has become ongoing within evolutionary
theory because of a massive gene centric bias that requires
the gene level to be _independently_ selectable (which
it is not).

The only way that a mutated gene can "sweep through 
the population" and not force that population to keep
on shrinking just to pay for a single selfish gene 
(forcing every genomic genes towards extinction) is for 
the fitness of any genomic gene to increase the TOTAL 
number (note: this _not_ just a relative measure) of 
fertile forms reproduced by the parent into one
population that reproduced  that gene, no exceptions. 
Reproduction by proxy using Hamiltonian logic will 
never do because organism fitness altruism (OFA) 
must reduce the TOTAL number of fertile forms 
reproduced into one population by any parent 
that has a _proven_ OFA selfish gene.

The reason Hamilton's rule fails is because the TOTAL
fitness of the actor is nowhere to be found within
the rule. This is because the baseline fitness m
has been deleted from the rule. The rule cannot 
distinguish between the cost c as an altruistic
loss to the actor and its complete opposite: 
the cost c that provides an abolute fitness 
gain for both the actor and recipient/recipients.
Without the TOTAL fitness of the actor the rule
remains incapable of measuring the basic distinction
between organism fitness altruism (OFA) and
its logical opposite: organism fitness mutualism 
(OFM). Subsequently, OFM has been routinely 
mistaken for OFA allowing just an illusion that
an altruistic in organism fitness gene can
absolutely spread. Once it is understood that
no gene can spread unless the TOTAL number 
of infertile forms that any parent raises
to fertile adulthood increases, it becomes
obvious that no gene can spread that reduces 
this TOTAL without forcing every other gene to
accept an absolute organism fitness loss reducing 
the size of ongoing populations and allowing
selection (not just evolution) for extinction.
Any evolutionary theory that allows extinction
to be selected _for_ is just self contradictory, 
i.e. absurd.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
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 11/3/04 12:33:25 PM