Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 08/04/04
- Next message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Previous message: TomHendricks474: "Re: That Means Purine/Pyrimidine Alternate"
- Maybe in reply to: Name And Address Supplied: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Next in thread: Name And Address Supplied: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Reply: Name And Address Supplied: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 15:25:24 +0000 (UTC)
Name And Address Supplied wrote:-
> > > > > > > > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > > > > > > > .. my point is simply that absolute
> > > > > > > > > > > offspring number is not the appropriate maximand.
> > > > > > > > > > > The appropriate measure is relative.
> > > > > > > > > > JE;-
> > > > > > > > > > The maximisation of just a relative fitness
> > > > > > > > > > measure remains a logical impossibility unless an
> > > > > > > > > > an absolute fitness measure is maximised, firstly.
> > > > > > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > > > > > That is incorrect. The maximum relative fitness does not
> > > > > > > > > necessarily
> > > > > > > > > coincide with the maximum absolute fitness, i.e. one
> > > > > > > > > evolutionary
> > > > > > > > > strategy might maximise one and not the other. To
> > > > > > > > > decide which
> > > > > > > > > strategy is favoured by natural selection, we need to
> > > > > > > > > choose between
> > > > > > > > > the relative or absolute fitness maximand. And the
> > > > > > > > > relative fitness
> > > > > > > > > maximand is the one that delivers the correct answer.
> > > > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > > > I will argue that you not correct where
> > > > > > > > such a basic difference does allow a test.
> > > > > > > > Using such a test, either your view or my
> > > > > > > > view must will stand refuted. Do you agree
> > > > > > > > that this is the case?
> > > > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > > > If I understand you correctly, then yes, I agree. And
> > > > > > > that was exactly
> > > > > > > my point (above).
> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > Please outline your test.
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > I have an example in mind, but I'd rather avoid being
> > > > > dragged off onto
> > > > > another tangent, so maybe later. The crucial point here
> > > > > is that you
> > > > > say that absolute fitness is the maximand, and I say that it is
> > > > > inappropriate. *This* point is easily put to the test: as
> > > > > I suggested
> > > > > earlier, I am at a loss to see how sex allocation
> > > > > strategies can be
> > > > > explained under your scheme.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > I am at a loss to see how sex allocation
> > > > provides a definitive test of your proposition:
> > > > just a relative fitness can constitutes a
> > > > valid "maximand".
> > > NAS:-
> > > You haven't been reading very carefully. It is not intended as a test
> > > for relative fitness. It may, however, demonstrate that absolute
> > > fitness is an inappropriate maximand.
> > JE:-
> > I have "been reading very carefully". The logic
> > has obviously escaped you. IF what you propose
> > is a valid test of "absolute fitness is the maximand"
> > THEN it must also be a test of relative fitness
> > as the maximand, unless you suggest no maximand
> > is required. This is because you have not provided
> > any maximand at all yet you still insist that only a
> > relative fitness is required to make biological sense
> > within Hamilton's rule.
> NAS:-
> Not so.
JE:-
Unless you explicitly state that fitness is
neither relative or absolute, when you suggest
you can test for a need for an absolute maximand,
and could prove it is not required, then you are
proving that a relative fitness can be a maximand
because any fitness is either absolute
or relative.
Are you suggesting that fitness can
be validly, neither relative or absolute?
Are you arguing that no maximand needs
to exist within evolutionary theory?
> NAS:-
> Perhaps I have no idea what the general maximand is, but that
> I do appreciate that it is not absolute fertile offspring number.
JE:-
Your statement is nonsensical unless you argue
that no maximand at all, is required. If you
are arguing that a maximand is always required
then you just _imply_ one by _default_.
Since all fitnesses are either relative
or absolute, refuting one as a
required maximand just leaves the other
as proven.
Can a relative fitness constitute a valid
maximand within evolutionary theory?
> NAS:-
> I have constructed a scenario to test whether my understanding what you
> consider to be the appropriate maximand is correct.
> Once you have submitted your answers, I will submit mine. If we
> disagree as to what the ESS z* is, and why, then we can continue with
> the debate. If not, then we can call the debate off, knowing that our
> disagreement is purely semantic.
JE:-
I will not participate in such model
simulation until you complete the
form:
"A DECLARATION OF MEANING "
So far you have only partly completed it.
The form is not a debate, just a declaration
of meaning. Please do not debate any issues
within the form, just complete the form.
> > JE:-
> > Do you insist that no maximand is required?
JE:-
Your unwillingness to answer this
basic question provides more evidence
re: consistent evasion on your part.
Please answer this question.
> > >snip "trivial" model<
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > Q2) With reference to the hypothesis "the maximand of natural
> > > > > selection is the absolute number of progeny which survive to
> > > > > reproductive age", explain your answer to Q1.
>
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Firstly, the above is just a model and not
> > > > an experiment. I have provided an experiment
> > > > and not just a model. An experimental
> > > > result overrides just a model result
> > > > otherwise you are dictating what nature
> > > > is rather than discovering what it may be.
> > > > Do you agree or disagree?
> NAS:-
> Potentially the model provides the basis for an experiment.
JE:-
Please state the aim, method, expected result
and your conclusions from the expected result
of this implied experiment.
>snip<
> > > > JE:-
> > > > My Darwinian fitness experiment predicts
> > > > that _any_ allocation strategy can only
> > > > evolve when the absolute Darwinian fitnesses
> > > > of both sexes result in an increase, i.e.
> > > > their fitness becomes mutualised. Please
> > > > prove this was not the case in your model
> > > > and then explain why your simplifications/
> > > > over simplifications did not hopelessly
> > > > distort your model in this regard.
> > > NAS:-
> > > John, the model is extremely simple, yes.
JE:-
YES it is simple but it is NOT
just a model. I am NOT proposing
just a model, you are only proposing
a model. I have proposed the basics
for an experimental test of Darwinism
which is vastly more significant.
A model can only refute a theory by
proving that the theories definitions
were invalid, i.e. were self
contradictory. That is all a model
can do.
> > > NAS:-
> > > Can I just check that I
> > > understood what your prediction is *for this model*? You are saying
> > > that *in this model* natural selection is ambivalent to sex allocation
> > > strategy?
> > JE:-
> > The selection of recourse allocation
> > within any association requires a mutualised
> > Darwinian fitness increase for all members
> > of that association.
> NAS:-
> Right,..
JE:-
THEREFORE: natural selection is NOT ambivalent
to sex allocation strategy or any other strategy.
>snip<
> > > > JE:-
> > > > I regard it as more evidence for
> > > > evasion. "Fitness mutualization"
> > > > is just a simple, self explanatory
> > > > term.
> > > NAS:-
> > > And one which is not used in the literature.
> > JE:-
> > Two points: what does this say about
> > the literature, and why on earth should
> > anybody conform themselves to only using
> > terms that Neo Darwinists (who IMHO have
> > proven themselves biased, inadequate or both)
> > sanction?
> NAS:-
> Invent new terms at will, if you think they
> are required. However:
> 1) do not complain when participants on this board demand an
> unambiguous definition for the new term.
JE:-
I _have provided an "unambiguous
definition for the new term".
> NAS:-
> 2) try only to invent new terms when strictly necessary - for example,
> if 'mutualization' is synonymous with 'mutualism', use 'mutualism'.
JE:-
A new term is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED because Hamilton's
rule defines mutualism and altruism in a totally
_ambiguous_ way because only a relative
fitness maximand was implied within his rule.
Definition:
Fitness mutualisation: An absolute
fitness increase for all who participate
in the association.
> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > To save time please be exact in what you ask.
> > > > > > If you are challenging the validity of the
> > > > > > word "mutualisation" then just say so.
> > > > > > Do you agree or disagree with:
> > > > > > ___________________________________________
> > > > > > Definition:
> > > > > > Mutualisation within Hamilton's rule is the
> > > > > > process whereby both the recipient and the
> > > > > > actor make a fitness gain.
> > > > > > ___________________________________________
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > I wouldn't refer to a process, but rather a state of being -
> > > > > "mutualism" - whereby the actions of actor cause a direct
> > > > > benefit to
> > > > > actor and to recipient.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > This is a science list.
> > > > A "state of being" alone, cannot
> > > > be assumed. A rational process that
> > > > can be tested must also be assumed.
> > > > Please note that once again you
> > > > have evaded giving an answer to
> > > > the question asked:
> > > > Definition:
> > > > Mutualisation within Hamilton's rule is the
> > > > process whereby both the recipient and the
> > > > actor make a fitness gain.
> > > > Do you agree or disagree?
>
> > > NAS:-
> > > Insofar as 'mutualisation' is synonymous with 'mutualism' (and I'm not
> > > saying that it is!) then I agree, provided that we also agree on the
> > > definition of 'fitness'.
>
> > JE:-
> > Please define:
> > 1) Relative fitness.
> > 2) Absolute fitness.
> > State how each is measured.
> NAS:-
> If we define fitness as the maximand of natural selection, then it is
> by definition relative, so relative fitness is synonymous with
> fitness, and absolute fitness is meaningless.
JE:-
More evasion. You said:
"provided that we also agree on the
definition of 'fitness'." Don't
just keep discussing the issue
provide your MISSING definitions.
Please define:
1) Relative fitness.
2) Absolute fitness.
State how each is measured.
> > >snip<
> > > > JE:-
> > > > "Tit for tat" is
> > > > the mutualised fitness strategy
> > > > that has been proven to exist
> > > > only using just over
> > > > simplified models.
> > > NAS:-
> > > TFT is usually unable to resist invasions of full Cooperators, by
> > > drift. Also, other strategies often beat it when there is the
> > > possibility of mistakes being made.
> > JE:-
> > It still remains the best
> > overall strategy as measured
> > by a plethora of simplified models, i.e.
> > it does not mean very much, anyway.
> > Do you deny that TFT is mutualistic
> > (this question does matter)?
> NAS:-
> TFT sometimes engages in mutualistic interactions. It depends on the
> strategy of the social partner, and their history.
JE:-
Please define "mutualistic" and
then outline one example that is
not mutualistic.
> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > You are not distinguishing between an oscillation and
> > > > > > a trend. As a simple example, if you plot the
> > > > > > return for investing in the share market then it has
> > > > > > absolutely risen over time. This means the returns
> > > > > > have trended up even though oscillations in both directions
> > > > > > do exist. A regression analysis only produces a
> > > > > > line pointing upwards and not downwards. If this
> > > > > > was not the case our economy would have become extinct
> > > > > > long ago and we would not have the computers required to
> > > > > > have this discussion.
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > So you are arguing that natural selection has foresight?
> > > > JE:-
> > > > No, I am arguing that natural selection works over
> > > > a finite time frame and _not_ at just any instant in
> > > > time. I have defined this time frame: the time
> > > > taken for any parent to complete its Darwinian
> > > > fitness (as I have defined it) in one population.
> > > NAS:-
> > > And, in the example I presented (of the trait which stops wildtype
> > > production at a cost to the carrier), I focussed on the change over
> > > this timescale, and found that natural selection can indeed decrease
> > > an individual's absolute offspring number.
> > JE:-
> > The MODEL you presented was absurd.
> > I will outline its absurdity below
> > where it is discussed in detail.
> NAS:-
> The absurdity seems to be that you regard the trait as biologically
> improbable.
JE:-
No, it is biologically impossible
to evolve such a trait. You invoke
the trait in a hopless _created_
starting state.
> NAS:-
> Perhaps this is the case. However, it is not physically
> impossible - for example, we could easily manipulate a population
> experimentally to produce such conditions.
JE:-
Please outline this experiment.
DO NOT just outline another MODEL.
> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > My argument is: because Neo Darwinism does not include
> > > > > > any _definitive_ absolute fitness measure within any of
> > > > > > their arguments (I will argue that the Hawk and Dove
> > > > > > SIMPLIFIED MODEL does contain a DELETED absolute measure)
> > > > > > they are only measuring oscillations and not trends
> > > > > > so no definitive result exists making Neo Darwinism
> > > > > > non testable against nature.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Please comment on the above.
> > > NAS:-
> > > More empty assertions.
> > JE:-
> > Really, you should do a course in logic.
> > Your assertion that what I wrote
> > was "More empty assertions" was the
> > empty assertion and not what I wrote.
> > One day you might like to work out
> > the logic of why this was indeed the
> > case.
> NAS:-
> Whatever.
JE:-
Obviously, the obscenity
of your statement escaped
you.
> > > > >snip<
> > > > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > > > You do not understand the implications of
> > > > > > > > an absolute fitness (as defined above).
> > > > > > > > The fitness of traits coded by genomic genes are
> > > > > > > > epistatic to just _one_ fitness level within
> > > > > > > > this theory. Do you know what this proposed single
> > > > > > > > level of fitness is? AFAICS you incorrectly thought I
> > > > > > > > was only supplying an over simplified MODEL. Such a
> > > > > > > > model would be utterly misused if it suggested
> > > > > > > > that at all times, within nature, the population
> > > > > > > > size "is wholly influenced by the trait in question".
> > > > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > > > It is a simple model, but it does provide a counter to
> > > > > > > your claims.
> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > Yes it is just "a simple model" but no,
> > > > > > it does _not_ "provide a counter" to
> > > > > > my claims. This is because the simplification
> > > > > > process INVALIDLY deleted Darwinian fitness from
> > > > > > the model which represented a TOTAL FITNESS, i.e. a
> > > > > > definitive and thus testable, absolute fitness
> > > > > > assumption. Without an objective absolute fitness
> > > > > > assumption relative fitness can only measure
> > > > > > oscillations and not trends (as explained above).
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > John, you are putting the cart before the horse. Please first
> > > > > demonstrate that deleting Darwinian fitness (whatever
> > > > > that is meant to
> > > > > mean) leads to incorrect predictions about evolutionary change.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > No, "you are putting the cart before
> > > > the horse". You cannot argue a relative
> > > > fitness result without firstly defining
> > > > what absolute fitnesses were being
> > > > compared to produce this result!
> > > > I have defined Darwinian fitness so
> > > > many times it is becoming nauseous.
> > > > Thus, when you write: "whatever that
> > > > is meant to mean", this can only
> > > > constitute more evidence for
> > > > evasion and/or denigration on your
> > > > part.
> > > NAS:-
> > > I was referring to "deleting Darwinian fitness" not "Darwinian
> > > fitness", i.e. I was saying that you are non-rigorous in your
> > > accusation of the failure of neodarwinism.
> > JE:-
> > Ok, let us settle this basic matter
> > once and for all. Please complete
> > the form I have submitted (and filled
> > out myself) in the new thread:
> >
> > A DECLARATION OF MEANING
> NAS:-
> Already done; ...
JE:-
Not that I can see.
You did exactly what was
_not_ required. You mostly
debated my entries.
Entries into the form
are NOT for debate within the
form. Please, just fill in
the form with your own ideas.
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > It seems to me that your problem with neodarwnism is
> > > > > philosophical,
> > > > > and does not translate into any actual error in its predictions.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > My "problem with neodarwnism is philosophical"
> > > > AND IT DOES "translate into any actual error[s] in its
> > > > predictions".
> > > NAS:-
> > > Such as?
> > JE:-
> > Here we go 'round the mulberry bush....
> >
> > --------------quote----------------------
> >
> > 1) 22/01/2004:
> >
> > JE:-
> > What is the difference between
> > a reduced positive c and a negative c?
> > If c was an abolute measure of fitness
> > then yes, a real difference exists. However
> > c is only a relative fitness cost and not
> > an absolute fitness cost, so what is the
> > difference?
> >
> > BOH:-
> >
> > As far as the rule is concerned, none.
> >
> > ----------- end quote --------------------
> >
> > For the 6th (?) time and counting:
> >
> > Do you agree or disagree with the
> > answer Dr O'Hara provided? A simple
> > YES or NO will suffice.
> JE:-
> No, a simple yes or no will not suffice to your question as it has
> been put.
> NAS:-
> My answer is: I disagree with Dr O'Hara.
JE:-
Thank you for finally answering
this question! For the life of me
I cannot understand why you did not
provide this answer the first time
it was asked. It would have saved
sbe reader's time and effort.
Please say how you CAN measure
"the difference between
a reduced positive c and a negative c"
within Hamilton's rule.
>snip<
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Your argument that I am arguing "pie
> > > > in the sky" philosophy is ridiculous.
> > > > I have provided a test to refutation
> > > > of Darwinism based on very simple
> > > > logic that should have been recognised
> > > > by the Neo Darwinian establishment
> > > > over half a century ago. This proves
> > > > this establishment is incompetent,
> > > > biased or both.
> > > NAS:-
> > > Maybe. Or maybe you are just wrong.
> > JE:-
> > Yes I am pleased to say I _have_
> > provided a point of refutation
> > for what I am talking about.
> > Have you and your Neo Darwinistic
> > colleagues? Do you even think that
> > it matters to do so?
> NAS:-
> Please unambiguously define 'point of refutation', and explain why
> this is important.
JE:-
I have done nothing but argue
for valid Popperian refutation
within Neo Darwinistic theory
for over 4 years! Do you want
me to rehash all of it? Have
you ever read Karl Popper?
Here are my definitions
with brief examples
re: physics and biology:
1) A point of refutation:
A deduction from the
definitions that is prohibited,
e.g. light cannot travel faster
than c. If such a prohibited
deduction becomes a documented
observation then the definition
stands refuted. In evolutionary
theory Darwinism stands refuted
when just one confirmed documented
case within nature of organism
fitness altruism is shown to
exist in nature (NOT just within
a model).
2) Refutation via invalidity:
If a definition is proven to
be self contradictory then it
stands refuted, e.g. when the speed
of light is defined as _both_ a
constant and a variable. In
evolutionary theory, Hamilton's
model stands refuted because
no difference between a reduced
positive c and a negative c exists
within the model.
> > > NAS:-
> > > Certainly I have seen no evidence
> > > that you have anything interesting to add to evolutionary theory from
> > > your contributions to this board. Don't get me wrong, there does
> > > appear to be the occasional flash of insight.
> > JE:-
> > Do you refer to:
> > r^eb > c?
> NAS:-
> Er, no.
JE:-
Ok, please be specific.
To what do you refer?
> > > NAS:-
> > > But these appear to have
> > > been reinventing the wheel, as you seem to be hugely ignorant of the
> > > primary literature from the last 35 - 40 years.
> > JE:-
> > I have proven that you and your
> > colleagues don't know what
> > the Darwinian wheel actually is.
> NAS:-
> Sorry, I must have missed that.
JE:-
Yes, you did miss it....
Please provide any other definition
that is different to the one that I
have provided that allows Darwinism
to be tested to refutation. Unless
you can, my statement stands verified.
> > NAS:-
> > The literature you mention is mostly based
> > on just a misuse of over simplified
> > models. My prediction is that one
> > day, as a professional in the field,
> > you and all the others will taken to
> > account over this misuse. Then again,
> > you have chosen to remain anonymous,
> > haven't you...
> NAS:-
> I agree that there is a misuse of over simplified models in the
> literature. Maybe this will shock you but researchers do not believe
> everything they read, even in the peer reviewed literature.
JE:-
Your example of model misuse was
the employment of IBD within
Hamilton's rule. Do you have
any other examples?
You agree that a model can be
misused but can a theory be
misused within the sciences?
> > > > > > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > > > > > So, what now is the _point_ of this discussion?
> > > > > > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > > > > > The appropriate maximand.
> > > > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > > > Please provide an unambiguous
> > > > > > > > definition of it.
> > > > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > > > My position is that yours is incorrect, not that I know
> > > > > > > exactly what
> > > > > > > the correct maximand is.
> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > Can't you see that your proposition above
> > > > > > is just absurd on both a relative and absolute
> > > > > > level?
> > > > > > 1) On just a relative level: I have proposed
> > > > > > a fully testable definition of absolute
> > > > > > fitness and proven it is the only absolute
> > > > > > assumption that exists within evolutionary
> > > > > > theory, where this assumption was always
> > > > > > implicit within Darwinism. You have not
> > > > > > supplied any absolute fitness. So, on just
> > > > > > a comparative basis you have nothing at all
> > > > > > to challenge what I have provided.
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > I can challenge you with a test of your measure's
> > > > > validity, even if I
> > > > > don't have an alternative.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Yes you can but so far you have
> > > > failed to provide any test of my
> > > > measure's _validity_. The model
> > > > you proposed above to demonstrate
> > > > that absolute fitness can be
> > > > selected to be decreased was
> > > > utterly misused.
> > > NAS:-
> > > An assertion. The model was valid. Not general, true, but it does
> > > provide a counter example.
> > JE:-
> > The model you proposed was absurd.
> > The logic you employed is the
> > same as creation logic.
> NAS:-
> Moderator?
JE:-
Josh has stated he will
allow the term "created"
and "creation" within
sbe as long as it is
not being debated. Here
I am simply stating that
the logical construction
of your model is based
on (absurd) creationistic
logic.
> > JE:-
> > If life
> > was created then trees must have
> > phoney growth rings created in them
> > and Adam must have a phoney navel.
> > Likewise you created a population
> > "which stops every wildtype individual
> > in the population reproducing at all"
> NAS:-
> This is tiresome.
JE:-
Yes it is. It was
very tiresome of you
to CREATE a starting
population where "every
wildtype individual in
the population" cannot
breed. Evolve one, YES
create one, NO!
>snip<
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > As it happens, I do have a fairly general
> > > > > alternative maximand, relative fitness. However, I am
> > > > > less interested
> > > > > in showing that this is the correct measure, than in showing that
> > > > > yours is incorrect.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > The above is a logical impossibility.
> > > > In order to prove I am wrong you must
> > > > provide CONCRETE alternatives.
> > > NAS:-
> > > Not so.
> > JE:-
> > So you know all the things that you do
> > not know?
> NAS:-
> This has no relevance.
JE:-
Yes it has.
Unless you know the things you
do not know then you must replace
an invalid maximand with a valid
one i.e. only an alternative
and proven better maximand allows
you to refute mine. The fact that
you may only imply a maximand
is immaterial, it still has to exist.
The only possible way you can escape
is to explicitly state that no
maximand is ever required, i.e.
"everything is relative". This
is termed Post Modernism. Many
posters openly admit that
they are Post Modern "thinkers".
Please be specific. Are you arguing
from a Post Modern Perspective or
do you suggest that a maximand has
to exist, even if it remains implicit?
> > > > JE:-
> > > > You have to provide a contesting
> > > > maximand that can be tested to
> > > > refutation or prove that just
> > > > a relative fitness measure can
> > > > act as a valid maximand. So far
> > > > you have provided neither.
> > > NAS:-
> > > I don't need to if all I am doing is demonstrating that absolute
> > > fitness is not the appropriate maximand, i.e. leads to incorrect
> > > predictions.
> > JE:-
> > IF "absolute fitness is not the appropriate maximand,
> > i.e. leads to incorrect predictions" THEN relative
> > fitness must be an appropriate maximand for any
> > correct prediction i.e. YOU HAVE provided a default
> > alternative but you are foolishly attempting to hide
> > it. Now why is that?
> NAS;-
> Because the true maximand is not of immediate interest to me.
JE:-
That is logically the same as suggesting
to Einstein that c, the maximal velocity
of light in a vacuum "is not of immediate
interest" to you because you wish to
maintain M (mass) and t (time) as constants
in the way Newton defined them, i.e.
it is just a load of reactionary nonsense.
> NAS:-
> Of immediate interest is the demonstration that it is not always absolute
> number of fertile offspring. One step at a time, John.
JE:-
The FIRST step is to identify
your own IMPLICIT maximand so
sbe reader's can COMPARE yours to
the one I have suggested. You do have
one but you do not wish to _explicitly_
identify it and thus expose it to possible
refutation. You are simply protecting
the maximand you _prefer_. It is childish
nonsense to insist that you only need to
refute the one I have provided.
> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > 2) On the more important absolute level:
> > > > > > You deny that an absolute fitness is even
> > > > > > required. In principle, your position
> > > > > > remains absurd. In effect you are suggesting
> > > > > > that no testable point of reference needs
> > > > > > to exist within Neo Darwinism for any
> > > > > > comparative (relative) measure, which is
> > > > > > absurd.
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > The reference is the population average, which appears on the
> > > > > denominator of the more appropriate maximand, relative fitness.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Your proposition is absurd. Averages
> > > > hide all the selective action they do
> > > > not elucidate them. You must DEFINE
> > > > the maximand not just imply one _may_
> > > > exist hidden away within some "average"
> > > > measure.
> > > NAS:-
> > > Uh, the population average is in the maximand, not vice versa, John.
> > JE:-
> > Uh, the population average is just a statistical
> > rework of a biological _reality_ it is not a
> > biological reality in its own right.
> NAS:-
> Perhaps, but the action of natural selection is a fundamentally
> statistical process.
JE:-
The action of natural selection is NOT
"fundamentally statistical process."
Natural selection is the default comparison
of all parental Darwinian absolute fitness
within one population. This is NOT a statistical
process. The absolute fitnesses are NOT
themselves being retotalled or statistically reworked
in any way they are simply compared by default.
> > JE:-
> > Please supply a REAL biological maximand.
> Absolute fertile offspring number is a real biological maximand in
> certain contexts.
JE:-
Please provide the context where
"absolute fertile offspring number"
provides an incorrect maximand.
>snip<
>snip<
> > > > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > > > You have failed to distinguish between just a simplified
> > > > > > > > model and the theory it was simplified from. This provides
> > > > > > > > a real danger that you may allow just an over simplified
> > > > > > > > model to invalidly compete and win against the theory
> > > > > > > > from which is was simplified/over simplified which I am
> > > > > > > > sure you would agree would be an absurdity.
> > > > > > > > How an allele's frequency changes in a population
> > > > > > > > and how a species abundance changes in a community
> > > > > > > > can only be explained using a testable theory. Please
> > > > > > > > provide or just acknowledge, such a theory.
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > Price's theorem.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > What is the maximand
> > > > within Price's theorem?
> > > NAS:-
> > > In simple terms, 'relative fitness'.
> > JE:-
> > Exactly. You have been
> > attempting to hide relative
> > fitness as your only
> > proposed maximand.
> NAS:-
> One step at a time.
JE:-
You have _incorrectly_
identified the first step.
Your first step is to
identify your own but
just implicit, maximand.
> > NAS:-
> > Do you agree that any relative fitness
> > is a fitness comparison, i.e. it is
> > a bilateral term and not a unilateral
> > term?
> NAS:-
> If I understand you, then I agree.
JE:-
"If I understand you"?
What have I said here that
is ambiguous?
You have agreed that relative fitness
is a minimally bilateral measure, i.e.
it is just a COMPARISON of at least
TWO OTHER FITNESSES.
_____________________________________
What are these _two_ other fitnesses
that are only being compared? Are they,
also, just relative fitnesses?
______________________________________
> > JE:-
> > Previously you noted that "marginal
> > fitness" was not an absolute or
> > relative fitness. Have you changed
> > your mind?
> NAS:-
> Can you provide a quote and reference? I have on countless
> occasions
> provided statements to the contrary.
JE:-
Below is the requested requote:
>-----------------------requote-------------------
> > > > > --------------quote----------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) 22/01/2004:
> > > > >
> > > > > JE:-
> > > > > What is the difference between
> > > > > a reduced positive c and a negative c?
> > > > > If c was an abolute measure of fitness
> > > > > then yes, a real difference exists. However
> > > > > c is only a relative fitness cost and not
> > > > > an absolute fitness cost, so what is the
> > > > > difference?
> > > > >
> > > > > BOH:-
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as the rule is concerned, none.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------- end quote --------------------
> > > > > _____________________________________________
> > > > > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > > > > Okay, here is my comment:
> > > > > > > > If c is supposed to represent what
> > > > > > > > I think it means, i.e. the cost in
> > > > > > > > Hamilton's rule, then it is neither
> > > > > > > > an absolute measure of fitness nor
> > > > > > > > a relative measure of fitness, but
> > > > > > > > is rather a marginal fitness cost.
------------- end requote -----------------------------
You wrote:-
the cost in Hamilton rule: "is neither
an absolute measure of fitness nor
a relative measure of fitness, but
is rather a marginal fitness cost."
If you cannot follow/remember your own
train of thought how can sbe reader's
believe that you can follow a contesting
argument?
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Previous message: TomHendricks474: "Re: That Means Purine/Pyrimidine Alternate"
- Maybe in reply to: Name And Address Supplied: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Next in thread: Name And Address Supplied: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Reply: Name And Address Supplied: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
