| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John Edser
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:21 pm Post subject: !QRe: Hamilton>s Rule: a free lunch |
 |
|
[quote]JE:-
The insanity of Hamilton>s rule is that it does
not exclude the possibility that as the altruistic
gene only relatively increases compared to the wildtype
gene, _both_ genes may be forced to become extinct.
BOH:-
Why is this insane?
JE:-
It is insane to suggest that just
a relative inclusive fitness gain
can absolutely reduce the freq of
the altruistic gene within the
population such that this gene now
heads towards extinction within that
population because of this
relative "gain". No mechanism of just
a relative fitness gain can produce the
extinction of the form being supposed to
make that gain within any sane evolutionary
theory because the supposed gain was just
an loss, i.e. the proposition of a fitness
gain was _refuted_.
BOH:-
Now can you actually provide an explanation, rather than just repeating
your position. My position may well be insane, but you need to provide
an explanation of why it is so, rather than just repeat your view.
JE:-
Your words above are just Mad Hatter
evasion.
My explanation of how just an inclusive
fitness gain is not necessarily a gain but
just an absolute loss, entirely refutes the
standard view that Hamilton>s inclusive fitness
gain, is always a gain.
snip
BOH:-
Once more you have not given any explanation. I>ll ask for a final
time. Why is it insane to suggest that there can be selection for an
altruistic phenotype, but that this can lead to extinction of the whole
population?
JE:-
I cannot believe the audacity of the question.
IF the population becomes extinct, THEN the
form "gaining" in inclusive fitness is proven
to have sustained an absolute fitness loss
simply because it no longer exists.
[/quote]
BOH:-
Thank you for finally giving an answer.
That>s fine. Hamilton>s Rule is a rule about
relative fitness, not absolute fitness.
JE:-
"Finally giving an answer"?!?
I have been posting this "answer"
for over 4 years. Are you so nieve
that you think that only Hamilton>s
Rule suffers from the absurd deletion
of any testable absolute measure, within
Neo Darwinism?
[quote]JE:-
Ergo:
you have redefined an absolute loss as
a relative gain just to sustain a false
theory of fitness.
[/quote]
No, there is no redefinition.
JE:-
Yes there was! Hamilton,
his supporters, Sociobiology
Dawkins selfish geneism,
subscribers to sbe such
Prof. Felsenstein, NAS
GH and yourself all
maintain that it was rational
to argue that an inclusive
fitness _gain_ can sustain
an organism fitness _loss_ also
producing an absolute _loss_ for
Hamilton>s altruistic gene.
Logically, this means that the _absolute_
fitness assumption here was inclusive
gene fitness. Organism fitness
was reduced to become entirely
relative to inclusive fitness.
In reality, the exact reverse is
the testable truth of the matter.
In set theory terms, Hamilton>s
argument is that organism fitness
is entirely a subset of inclusive
fitness i.e. the absolute fitness
assumption of the argument is
inclusive fitness. However, the
testable truth is the exact opposite.
Inclusive fitness is entirely a
subset of Darwinian organism fitness,
excluding any possibilit that selection
at the gene level can cause a reduction
of fitness at the organism level. The
proof that Hamilton, yourself, Felsenstein,
and the entire gene centric Neo Darwinistic
establishment had got cause and affect
entirely in reverse, is the simple fact
that an inclusive fitness gain _can_
produce an absolute fitness loss
within Hamilton>s rule but _not_
within Darwinism.
BOH:-
There is still a relative gain - and no
statement is made about changes in overall population growth rates (your
"absolute loss").
JE:-
Of course "there is still a relative gain"!@#$%
However such a "gain" remains entirely _arbitrary_
if the absolute fitness losses for the same gene
are not included. Surely this is just obvious?
You are just endlessly repeating the
oldest con trick in the book. Illegal Pyramid schemes,
such as the one NAS posted to save Hamilton>s rule
from absolute losses. They all work on the same principle.
Quote the relative gains but leave out the absolute
losses. The common word for it is deception. The
legal word for it is fraud. You are supposed to be
doing science and not attempting to sell snake oil
schemes to a gullible public.
Happy Christmas,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@ozemail.com.au |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Anon.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:50 am Post subject: Re: !QRe: Hamilton>s Rule: a free lunch |
|
|
John Edser wrote:
[quote]JE:-
The insanity of Hamilton>s rule is that it does
not exclude the possibility that as the altruistic
gene only relatively increases compared to the wildtype
gene, _both_ genes may be forced to become extinct.
BOH:-
Why is this insane?
JE:-
It is insane to suggest that just
a relative inclusive fitness gain
can absolutely reduce the freq of
the altruistic gene within the
population such that this gene now
heads towards extinction within that
population because of this
relative "gain". No mechanism of just
a relative fitness gain can produce the
extinction of the form being supposed to
make that gain within any sane evolutionary
theory because the supposed gain was just
an loss, i.e. the proposition of a fitness
gain was _refuted_.
BOH:-
Now can you actually provide an explanation, rather than just repeating
your position. My position may well be insane, but you need to provide
an explanation of why it is so, rather than just repeat your view.
JE:-
Your words above are just Mad Hatter
evasion.
My explanation of how just an inclusive
fitness gain is not necessarily a gain but
just an absolute loss, entirely refutes the
standard view that Hamilton>s inclusive fitness
gain, is always a gain.
snip
BOH:-
Once more you have not given any explanation. I>ll ask for a final
time. Why is it insane to suggest that there can be selection for an
altruistic phenotype, but that this can lead to extinction of the whole
population?
JE:-
I cannot believe the audacity of the question.
IF the population becomes extinct, THEN the
form "gaining" in inclusive fitness is proven
to have sustained an absolute fitness loss
simply because it no longer exists.
BOH:-
Thank you for finally giving an answer.
That>s fine. Hamilton>s Rule is a rule about
relative fitness, not absolute fitness.
JE:-
"Finally giving an answer"?!?
I have been posting this "answer"
for over 4 years. Are you so nieve
that you think that only Hamilton>s
Rule suffers from the absurd deletion
of any testable absolute measure, within
Neo Darwinism?
No, I am neither a handgrip, or a clenched hand.[/quote]
<snip>
[quote]
BOH:-
There is still a relative gain - and no
statement is made about changes in overall population growth rates (your
"absolute loss").
JE:-
Of course "there is still a relative gain"!@#$%
However such a "gain" remains entirely _arbitrary_
if the absolute fitness losses for the same gene
are not included. Surely this is just obvious?
Is this a problem? the purpose of Hamilton>s rule is to suggest one[/quote]
mechanism by which altruism can evolve. As long as the absolute fitness
remains greater than 1, then there one will still observe the species
with its altruistic phenotype, and that is all Hamilton>s rule tries to
tell us.
If the effect of the altruistic phenotype is to reduce the absolute
fitness below 1, but to increase it>s own total (=direct and inclusive)
fitness, then the proportion of the individuals in the population will
still increase, and again that is all Hamilton>s rule tries to tell us.
Of course, the population will eventually go extinct, but in order to
understand the dynamics, you need Hamilton>s rule to explain why the
altruistic phenotype increased in proportion. You also need some
population dynamic theory to explain the process of extinction, of course.
Bob
--
Bob O>Hara
Rolf Nevanlinna Institute
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax: +358-9-191 22 779
WWW: http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/ |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
