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.

> BOH:-
> "no fitness" and "zero fitness" are not the same things.
> A temperature  of zero degrees Celcius does not mean no
> temperature.

> JE:-
> Exactly, but this is my argument _against_
> Hamilton. You cannot have relative temperature
> without an assumption of asolute temperature.
> Nought temperature is 0 degrees Kelvin. This
> point has never been reached but provides an
> absolute measure of temperature. Without it,
> just a relative celcius measure in is
> meaningless.
> Hamilton's rules attemptes to invalidly
> subsitute a relative measure for an
> absolute measure.

BOH:-
No it dosn't.

JE:-
Rubbish. If selection at just Hamilton's gene level
can be supposed to cause fitness altruism at the
Darwinian organism level, then gene fitness
and not organism fitness is being touted as
as THE ABSOLUTE measure of fitness, isn't it?


BOH:_
It ONLY provides the relative measure - it only compares
the fitnesses of the two behaviours.

JE:-
Yes Hamilton, "ONLY provides the relative measure"
to exactly WHAT, totally _missing_ absolute measure?

<snip>
>>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.

> BOH:-
> Because it doesn't need to be there.  If the question is "Am I taller
> than you?", then if I'm 1cm taller, it doesn't matter if I'm 54cm tall
> or 724km tall - the answer is still "yes".
> Recently there has been quite a bit of work on the dynamics of
> populations, but none of it (as far as I'm aware) invalidates Hamilton's
> rule.

> JE:-
> An absolute reduction is parental fitness
> has nothing to do with "population dynamics",
> it remains solely the concern of fitness _definitions_.
> The relative measure only answers the one question.
> It can only do so because the absolute measure exists,
> _implicitly_.  Do you agree or disagree?

BOH:-
I agree.  And as Hamilton was only trying to answer the question about
relative fitness, that's all he needed.

JE:-
"that's all he needed"[EMAIL PROTECTED]&*!

Do you also agree that any rule that
only includes a general term for
relative fitness but utterly fails
to include within it a general term
for absolute fitness is just an arbitrary
rule?

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. Such
Mad Hatter "rules" are typical of Neo Darwinian model
misuse. What term MUST you include within Hamilton's
rule to remove any possibility that as the
altruistic gene only relatively increases
compared to the wild type gene, both genes
head for extinction because absolute organism
fitness has been reduced?

> JE:-
> Why did you just snip the hypothetical argument provided
> which demonstrated in very simple terms the absurdity of
> just measuring a relative gain in height increase if it
> costs an absolute height reduction for both?

BOH:-
Because it wasn't relevant.  Hamilton was only interested in answering
questions about relative fitness.

JE:-
Forced extinction "wasn't relevant"[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is just Mad Hatter nonsense. You
are suggesting it is not relevant for
a general road map of fitness
to be shown to be ABSOLUTELY wrong.

Please pass Hamilton's fairy cake
to the white rabbit. He seems to
be going very green around the
gills...

Best Wishes,

John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

[EMAIL PROTECTED]