"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> "Name And Address Supplied"
 wrote
> 
> >> JE:-
> >> If both rb and c increased, this is not measured
> >> within the rule since the rule can only measure the relative
> >> difference between them. Thus under the rule rb>c
> >> simply because rb absolutely increases more than c
> >> absolutely, does. In this instance c and rb are not
> >> necessarily competitive for the same resources
> 
> 
> > NAS:-
> > what exactly do you mean by
> >  "c and rb are not necessarily competitive for the same
resources"?
> 
> JE:-
> Hamilton only expressed Darwinian fitness negatively,
> as the cost c, to rb (inclusive fitness).  For
> Hamilton, as inclusive fitness increases, Darwinian fitness
> must decreases.

inclusive fitness is total fitness.  An act is favoured if total
fitness of the actor is increased by the act.  i.e. let baseline
fitness be 'a'.  Let the fitness of an individual who carries out some
act be a + d.  The act is favoured if d > 0.  Now, the d has two
components: the cost to the actor (c; if the act favours the direct
fitness of the actor, c is negative) and rb (the benefits to the
direct fitnesses of relatives, weighted by their relatedness to the
actor).  The condition for the act to be favourable, to be favoured by
selection, is d > 0.  This becomes rb -c > 0, i.e. rb > c.  This is
the condition for the act to be favoured by selection.  It holds
regardless of the sign of r b and c, i.e. if rb>c is true, the act is
favoured, if it is not true, the act is not favoured.
 
>  When:
> 1) rb=1 and c=1 all fitness is inclusive 

all fitness is inclusive by definition at all times.  inclusive
fitness, or at least the portion due to the action under
consideration, is given by rb-c.

> but the
> altruistic organism remains entirley sterile.
> 2) rb=0 and c =0 nothing has happened.

rb > c is then false, and hamilton's rule correctly predicts that the
action will not be selectively favoured.

> 3) rb=0 and c =-1 then all fitness is Darwiniistic
> and no sterile organism fitness is supposed.

in this case, rb>c  (0 > -1) and so Hamilton's rule correctly predicts
that the action will be selectively favoured.
> 
> Obviously  c is _not_ just a cost to rb it is also a competitive
> form of fitness in its own right which can validly be expressed
> positively. Within the rule rb can also be regarded as
> a cost to c depending of course, which form of fitness is
> actually operating  within _nature_.

only if there is some predefined tradeoff between the two.  this isn't
necessarily the case.  it is easy to think of scenarios in which an
act can simultaneously increase both direct fitness and the direct
fitnesses of relatives.
> 
> In any instance where Darwinian fitness absolutely increases no
> fitness altruism can exist, no matter how high  inclusive fitness
> is, even when inclusive fitness is relatively > Darwinian fitness.
> Inclusive fitness (rb) and Darwinian fitness (c)
> do not have to compete against each other for finite organism
> reproductive resources as Hamilton suggested, they can compliment
> each other such that rb only represents an investment  cost for an
> absolute increase in Darwinian fitness (c), even when the Darwinian
> gain, in relative terms, is less than the inclusive fitness gain. As long
> as Darwinian fitness absolutely increases,  inclusive fitness must
> be absolutely < Darwinian fitness.

again, i believe this to be a misunderstanding of what inclusive
fitness actually is.  it is the total fitness, the maximand under
optimization.  hamilton tried to convey this, hence the use of the
word 'inclusive'.

> 
> > > JE:-
> > > so no altruism has been proved, just assumed.
> > > In reality rb< c where helping rb _increased_ c
> > > (Darwinian fitness) more than it cost.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > increasing c is increasing the cost!
> 
> JE:-
> Not necessarily!

increasing c is increasing the cost.  regardless of what happens to
the benefit, the costs are still increased.

> If both rb and c _absolutely_ increase, then normal
> Darwinian fitness is alone, operating.
> Now rb is logically a cost to c
> (the exact opposite to what Hamilton supposed).

You have not demonstrated this at all.  

> To prove fitness altruism rb must be absolutely
> larger than c and not just relatively larger.
> Hamilton and the Neo Darwinists that followed,
> never bothered to consider this critical difference.
> 

???
---
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 11/7/02 1:24:26 PM