Re: Hamilton's Rule: light at the end of a LONG tunnel?
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 07/06/04
- Next message: John Edser: "RE: "Relative fitness" and other evolution pertaining"
- Previous message: Tim Tyler: "Re: Analog vs Digital"
- Maybe in reply to: John Edser: "Hamilton's Rule: light at the end of a LONG tunnel?"
- Next in thread: Bob O'Hara: "Re: Hamilton's Rule: light at the end of a LONG tunnel?"
- Reply: Bob O'Hara: "Re: Hamilton's Rule: light at the end of a LONG tunnel?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 15:58:13 +0000 (UTC)
"Bob O'Hara" <bob.ohara@NOSPAM.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> >>>Multi-level selection
> >>>Sean Rice
> >>>Dept. of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
> >>>Yale University :
> >>>http://pantheon.yale.edu/~sean/group.html
> >>>
<snip>
> >>>Discussion:
> >>>JE:-
> >>>Rice has rediscovered the obvious: an altruistic gene
> >>>_cannot_ spread unless an absolute fitness gain is secured
> >>>and not just a relative fitness increase. Such an event
> >>>is possible using classical group selection as Rice
> >>>has illustrated i.e. Hamiltonian fitness is just a hidden
> >>>rehash of discredited classical group selection.
> >>BOH:-
> >>No, John. Rice is presenting Hamilton's ideas as the "new" (clean,
> >>shiny and, err, Sober) group selection. This interpretation is used in
> >>the first half of Wilson and Sober's "Unto Others", but stems from
> >>Price's work.
> > JE:-
> > "Clean" and "shiny" group selection,
> > remains "group selection". Do you agree
> > or disagree that Hamilton's rule was
> > always _dependently_ group selective?
> BOH:-
> I disagree. It is clearly not the "classical" group selection, which is
> the only form that was around in the 1960s,...
JE:-
Hamilton requires the number of organism recipients to be
> 1 unless a single recipient clone is being supposed
related r = 1. Thus a _group_ of independent Darwinian
selectees must increase their _total_ fitness because
of b donated by just a _single_ actor where such an action
remains absolutely _mandatory__ for his gene to just relatively
increase against the wildtype gene. No Darwinian individual
selectee can be Darwinian selected to donate its fitness to
Darwinian competitors. Isn't that obvious? Thus Hamilton's
inclusive fitness view is both _dependently_ and _classically_
group selective and must _compete_ and _win_ against Darwinian
individual selection. If it didn't, it could not produce
organism fitness altruism which if observed within nature
refutes Darwinism.
>snip<
> >>BOH:-
> >>New group selection is now a part of "multi-level selection"
> >>which acknowledges that selection can occur at several levels (gene,
> >>individual, group, etc.), and that there are occasions when one has to
> >>take several of these levels into consideration when analysing
> evolution.
> > JE:-
> > Great. When one level fails just move to the other
> > and then switch back again ad hoc, as you please,
> > evading any refutation within evolutionary
> > theory. So, in this brave new world no refutation is
> > required just promiscuous forms of "verification".
> > Wonderful. The cost: Evolution becomes irrefutable
> > nonsense.
> BOH:-
> No, John, if one includes another level in your analysis, then you will
> be expected to show that this inclusion has an effect.
JE:-
If you include another level you will
"be expected to show that this inclusion
has an effect"? Why else would you include
it? I mean, if it has no effect then it is
useless including it! What you have to prove
is independent OR dependent effects. If
they remain independent you have to prove if
they can or cannot be simultaneous. Just assuming
another level "has an effect" proves nothing
at all.
> BOH:-
> The mathematics
> or this were initially set out in the early 1970s (Price's equation),
> and have been developed since then.
> Group selection is no more or less refutable than any other scientific
> theory. As well as providing a wider perspective, it also puts bounds
> on when this should be used.
JE:-
"Group selection is no more or less
refutable than any other scientific
theory"? Such a statement represents
a blatant disregard of the facts.
Firstly, you have hopelessly confused
a model with a theory. Since you
(or almost anybody else here) refuses
to discuss the epistemological difference
between them, this issue can never be
resolved. Secondly, Darwinian
single level selection theory is
entirely definable and testable.
I have defined it and provided a
biological experiment that verifies
the concept that also, tests it to
refutation. So far, despite repeated
requests, you have failed to comment
on either. I can only conclude that
you prefer denial to any enlightened
debate on this most critical issue.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: John Edser: "RE: "Relative fitness" and other evolution pertaining"
- Previous message: Tim Tyler: "Re: Analog vs Digital"
- Maybe in reply to: John Edser: "Hamilton's Rule: light at the end of a LONG tunnel?"
- Next in thread: Bob O'Hara: "Re: Hamilton's Rule: light at the end of a LONG tunnel?"
- Reply: Bob O'Hara: "Re: Hamilton's Rule: light at the end of a LONG tunnel?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
