"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> "Name And Address Supplied"
 wrote
> 
> > > JE:-
> > > Dr O'Hara has lost sight of the biology involved.
> > > Yes, "as any fool knows, alleles are replicated by the
> > > organism they're in". The resources of any fertile
> > > organism are _limited_ and must be partitioned
> > > between rb and c. The more energy spent
> > > on reproducing an allele by proxy (rb), the less that
> > > is left to be spent on c, normal reproduction, such that
> > > when c=1 no normal reproduction results and inclusive
> > > fitness is maximised. The "or" I used above refers to this
> > > opportunity costing where, at all times, the more the
> > > allele uses rb the greater the cost c, and vice versa.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > What are you on about?  It is quite possible for an organism to
> > increase its rb and c simultaneously.
> 
> JE:-
> Yes, but when it does so no fitness altruism, results.
> This is fitness mutualisation and is a concept
> that is a simple extension of normal Darwinian fitness.
> It appears only when rb< c but both rb and c increase.

Any action involving rbc; the distinction is that in the case of altruism c is
positive, and for mutualism c is negative.

> Hamilton's concept is apposed to fitness mutualism. This
> is why it is termed fitness altruism and only appears when
> rb>c. Unequal fitness mutualisation has been confused
> with fitness altruism. In this instance rb increases more
> than c where both increase but rb is always less than c.
> 

It is true that many cases of mutualism may have been hastily deemed
altruism, but to say that the concept of mutualism is confused with
altruism is ridiculous.

> > > JE:-
> > > when c=1 no normal reproduction results and inclusive
> > > fitness is maximised
>  
> > NAS:-
> > i think you have misunderstood what "inclusive fitness"
is.  It is not
> > the portion of fitness that derives from relatives' reproduction, but
> > the total fitness, the sum of your direct fitness and the fitness
> > gained through relatives.  Hence "inclusive".
> 
> JE:-
> Inclusive fitness strictly refers to the replication rate
> of just _one_ allele over however, organism and not
> gene, generations. It has two paths: actual or just proxy
> reproduction. The value rb only measures the proxy
> reproduction of the allele while c only measures the normal
> reproduction of the same allele,  within ordinary
> Darwinian organism fitness. When c=1 all the
> alleles have been replicated by proxy, so the
> altruistic actor is sterile since c, as a cost to rb,
> ranges between 0 and 1 and is maximal at 1.
> 
> > > > > JE:-
> > > > > Not interesting?!?
> > > > > Such a view is more _biologically_ interesting since
> > > > > it is the ignored fitness mutualisation argument.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > In what way ignored?  Are any of you people actually reading the
> > current literature?
> 
> JE:-
> Wilson, Dawkins, Trivers et al still dominate. I also refer
> you to Prof. Felsenstein's vigorous defence of Hamilton
> within sbe. All fitness altruism remains supported by
> fHamilton's simplified model after the
> collapse of group selection. I insist that to start fitness
> altruism,  r^eb> c where   e=1. Prof Felsenstein insists
> that rb>c, but has not supplied any reasoning to show how
> such a situation can even start, especially  when non additive
> epistasis is now included to make Hamilton's over simplified
> model more real.

Could you briefly derive this epistatic inequality for me?  Also, what
exactly is meant by epistasis in this situation?  That the level of
altruism is not the sum of the additive effects of the altruism genes?

> 
> > > > BOH:-
> > > > OK, sorry, perhaps I should clarify what I meant.  It's not
>  interesting
> > > > from a theoretical point of view, because the effect is
so obvious.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > It is obvious that when rb and c are all positive the act is favoured.
> >  But it is not always obvious in what circumstances this can arise.
> > In nature, it is often difficult to dissect out of complicated
> > interactions the kin selected and mutualism components.  It is still
> > receiving alot of empirical and theoretical scrutiny.
> 
> JE:-
> Nothing could be easier!
> Darwinism prohibits all fitness altruism.

If i understand correctly, then this is a trivial argument over
semantics.  Altruism has a definition in the evolutionary literature. 
If an individual acts in such a way as to benefit another individual
at a non-negative cost to itself, then this counts as altruism. 
Acting in such a way that enhances the direct fitness of others even
though there is no direct fitness benefit to yourself, and perhaps
even a fitness cost!  Altruism in this sense is ultimately
selfishness.

> All you have to do to eliminate fitness
> altruism is assume that the cost to the actor,
> in Darwinian fitness, is LESS than the gains.
> However, if you do not correctly identify
> Darwinian fitness you may see Darwinian
> fitness altruism where none actually exists.
> This seems to be common and appears to
> be caused by the misunderstanding of
> what Darwinian fitness actually measures.
> 
> Darwinian fitness is only measured in
> fertile forms and is just the total number
> of such forms reproduced per fertile
> form. Hamilton made a basic error in logic.
> He attributed a form of fitness to sterile forms,
> when obviously, all sterile forms have zero fitness.
> Unless Hamilton was measuring gene fitness as
> gene replication _within_ a sterile individual,
> which he was not, he remains in serious error.
> 

Why are sterile forms intrinsically different from fertile forms?  Are
they not merely one extreme of a continuum?  What does it matter if
they contribute an infinitesimal fraction of the next generation or
make zero contribution?

> > > JE:-
> > > Careful, you may initiate a discussion
> > > on  fitness mutualisation......
> > > Why do Neo Darwinists prefer a smarter
> > > answer to a more simple, but more intelligent
> > > answer? Why is obvious fitness mutualisation
> > > consistently ignored in favour of the Mad Hatter's
> > > Tea Party that is fitness altruism?
>  
> > NAS:-
> > I don't see that it is 'consistently ignored'.  It is usually the most
> > parsimonious, and the most favoured explanation for behaviour.  In
> > some cases it fails to explain why behaviour is occuring, and so we
> > turn to alternatives such as kin selection.  And, guess what, I am a
> > neodarwinist!  I have no problem with kin selection, but this does not
> > mean that i am blind to all other evolutionary phenomena.
> 
> JE:-
> For kin selection to work, rb>c. While this appears possible
> on paper, Darwinism entirely prohibits it.

How so?

> If rb > c as a documented
> case within nature ever existed (not one instance exists), then
> Darwinism would stand, refuted. What has been happening
> is that rb>c is just being assumed and then made to fit the
> data, ad hoc. Hamilton originally did this with the Hymenoptera
> because haplodiploidy seemed to fit so well. In fact
> multiple male mating reduced this fit to a non fit. Have a
> look at any of the latest websites,

I prefer to trust the peer reviewed literature, thank you.  I can find
support for all sorts of crazy stuff on the net.  It doesn't mean that
i believe any of it.

> or most modern texts. Hardly
> any mention this basic fact. Also, Hamilton new that the Isoptera,
> which are fully diploid are also eusocial.

Haplodiploidy is not essential.  Another famous eusocial diploid is
the naked mole rat.

> Basic scepticism was
> not employed by Hamilton. Everybody liked the idea and jumped
> on the bandwagon.
> 

Personally, i do think that kin selection has been over rated, and
that in many cases mutualism is at work.  But inclusive fitness, as
its name suggests, is an umbrella term which catches all these
phenomena adequately within the rule r b > c.

> I  have tried, on several occasions, to initiate discussion
> on the use and misuse of simplified models like
> Hamilton's. Nobody will respond. I can only conclude
> that evolutionary theory is being manipulated for
> political purposes since "altruism" and "selfishness"
> seem to mark a common political divide which historically,
> evolutionary theory has never been immune from.

I'm responding.  I have no politically driven ulterior motives here,
just an awe of the natural world.  So don't write me off and resume
patting yourself on the back for being oh so clever just yet.
---
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 11/5/02 6:36:42 PM