Re: Hamilton's Rule: a free lunch

>>>JE:-
>>>...[zero] only represents a zero state of some biological
>>>_unknown_. 

>>BOH:-
>>Would you care to demostrate why my statement is wrong, rather than just 
>>ignoring the content of what I wrote?  I can't accept your statements 
>>without you persuading me that my ideas are wrong.  And I can't do that 
>>  if you don't try and say what are wrng with my ideas.

>>JE:-
>>When rb-c=0 what is left?

> BOH:-
> What is left from what?

> JE:-
> Hamilton's rule is supposed
> to be a fitness road map. Suddenly 
> no road map exists, i.e. we have gone 
> off the map because zero fitness is
> represented. However a real fitness 
> still remains. What biological fitness 
> actually remains when rb-c=0?

BOH:-
The fitnesses of the two behaviours.  
But now they're equal.

JE:-
You failed to mention the two equal
fitnesses are logically _opposed_.
If both fitnesses are equal but 
logically opposed, as Hamilton's rule
insists that they are, then _relatively_
no fitness, i.e. just a zero fitness exists 
within Hamilton's rule when rb-c. Just
like two equal but relatively phase opposed 
sound waves can only produce total silence, the equal 
_opposing_ fitnesses within the model, i.e. Hamilton's 
hypothetical  gene level opposing Darwin's _non_ 
hypothetical organism level, reduces Hamilton's 
measure of _relative_  fitness to just a zero state 
within his model. No _absolute_ fitness state is 
represented within the rule so we don't know how
this _key_ concept is affected. Absolute 
fitness still _biologically_ exists when rb-c=0,
allowing natural selection to continue to
operate. I repeat, this key concept: absolute
fitness is not included as a general term 
within Hamilton's rule. 

BOH:-
If I want to find out if I'm taller than you, I do it by measuring my 
height and your height, and taking the difference.  IF we're both 188cm 
tall, then the difference is zero.  But that doesn't mean that neither 
of us has no height at all.

JE:-
Exactly, but the above is my argument _against_
Hamilton. Two and not just one, height concepts 
exist in your argument: relative and absolute
height. In biology two concepts of fitness
exist, relative and absolute fitness. When you just 
compare heights you are only using a relative concept of 
height so that when they are equal but opposed, the
absolute concept of height must remain otherwise
no such comparison was possible. Likewise, when rb-c=0, 
absolute fitness remains within the science of biology
but remains absent from Hamilton's rule.

If you become taller than me but we both must absolutely 
shrink as this happens just to pay for it, then 
_relative_ height has cost you _absolute_ height
so you have not gained in height. Exactly the 
same possibility is not excluded within Hamilton's rule
because no general term exists within his over simplified
model to represent absolute fitness. As the altruistic gene 
just relatively increases against the wild type, the number 
of both genes represented in bodies may absolutely
fall because absolute organism fitness has been reduced 
to pay for it, where genomic gene fitness is organism
fitness _dependent_. If this continues, then both 
genes become extinct. To remove such an absurdity
from any fitness model you must include a general
term for absolute fitness. Please include a general
term within Hamilton's rule that removes the absurdity
of the rule suggesting that it is valid for selection
at just a hypothetical gene level to lead to an _absolute 
reduction_ of all genes at the organism level, leading to 
the extinction of that population.

Best Wishes,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

[EMAIL PROTECTED]