Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 08/11/04
- Next message: dkomo: "Re: Characterizing complexity"
- Previous message: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: what is life"
- Maybe in reply to: Name And Address Supplied: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:53:13 +0000 (UTC)
"Bob O'Hara" <bob.ohara@NOSPAM.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> >>BOH
> >>I would just like to admit that this was ambiguous, which is why I have
> >>tried to clarify it.
> >>You have also changed the question, to one which is different
> >>to the one
> >>I was answering (or at least thought I was answering), and my
> >>clarifications should clear this all up.
> > JE:-
> > Dr O'Hara now wishes to "clarify" his
> > response now that he has more fully realised
> > the deductive implications of his answer.
> BOH:-
> No John, my view has not changed, and this clarification is in the
> thread where I assume you took the quote from.
JE:-
My original question was not ambiguous and neither
was Dr O'Hara's original answer so no clarification
of either is required. Also, I have NOT changed
this question is any way. Always, I have
posted the same question.
What seems to be required here is
how the rule translates into _valid_
statements within a science of
biology where almost nobody
seems to agree yet it remains the sole purpose
of the rule! At the moment these quite separate
issues seem hopelessly confused within the minds
of most responders to this question.
For reference here is a reposted summery
of what Dr O'Hara has previously agreed.
His requested repost appears afterwards.
-------------- start reposted summery --------
sent: Thu 12/02/2004 11:42 AM
JE:-
If -c is mutualism and +c is altruism
but c is arbitrary within the rule then
the rule cannot discriminate between them.
BOH:-
Yes, I totally agree.
sent: Sat 14/02/2004
JE:-
Note that OFM is *NOT* outside of the rule
because Hamilton included OFM within the
rule as any condition of the rule where c is
negative. Because the sign if c remains arbitrary
within Hamilton’s rule it cannot discriminate
between OFA and OFM, period.
BOH:-
I totally agree.
My point is that Hamilton's rule was not intended as a rule to
discriminate between altruism and mutualism.
Sent: Thu 19/02/2004:
JE:-
Do you also agree that Hamilton's rule
was employed to suggest that OFA could
exist within nature,
BOH:-
Yes.
JE:-
It was the rule that was being proffered
to support OFA when group selection
failed to do so!
BOH:-
Indeed.
Sent: Tue 24/02/2004:
JE:-
Do you agree that Hamilton's rule only
measures differences in relative fitnesses?
BOH:-
Yes.
JE:-
If -c is mutualism and +c is altruism
but c is arbitrary within the rule then
the rule cannot discriminate between them.
BOH:-
Yes, I totally agree.
JE:-
Do you agree that the
sign of c remains arbitrary
within the rule?
BOH:-
Yes.
JE:-
..you agree that it is possible for the altruistic
gene to relatively spread as the absolute fitness of both
genes, i.e. Hamilton's hypothetical altruistic genes and the
wildtype non altruistic gene it is contesting becomes
absolutely reduced?
BOH:-
Yes.
JE:-
All sterile forms come from non sterile
forms and not vice versa. The effect sterile
forms can have is only selectable at the fertile
level of selection and not at a sterile
level of selection. Do you agree or disagree?
BOH:-
Yes, I agree.
Sun 29/02/2004:
BOH:-
..
Hamilton's rule can't be used to
separate out mutualism and altruism
at all.
------------------- end reposted summery -----------
> > JE:
> > In simple terms, Dr O'Hara is attempting
> > to extricate himself from taking any
> > responsibility for the answer he provided.
> > He is also attempting to blame myself and
> > not himself for these actions.
> > __________________________________________
> > Question A remains exactly the same
> > as the original question I asked and
> > Dr O'Hara's response remains totally
> > unambiguous.
> >
> > __________________________________________
> >
> > Here is the quote again:
> > --------------quote----------------------
> >
> > 1) 22/01/2004:
> BOH:-
> John ,would you mind posting the
> URL of the full message you've taken
> this from, I can't find it in the only
> message I posted on the 22nd.
JE:-
Google search:
The date posted appears to be 2004-01-09
The 22nd may be the date I received it.
-----------------Requested Partial Requote------------
From: Anon. (bob.ohara@SOD.OFF.Spammers.helsinki.fi)
Subject: Re: Hamilton's Rule: a free lunch
View: Complete Thread (143 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Date: 2004-01-09 16:43:22 PST
John Edser wrote:
>>>JE:-
>>>The only thing which is "obvious" here
>>>is your confusion of a point of
>>>non verification with a point of
>>>refutation.
>>>The "prediction of whether the altruistic
>>>phenotype is fitter", on however, just a
>>>relative and not an absolute fitness basis
>>>may or may not be verified when r,b, and c
>>>are calculated. When it isn't verified the
>>>proposition stands non verified but _not_,
>>>refuted. Refutation requires the observation
>>>within nature confirming the anti-thesis. A
>>>lack of an observation confirming the thesis
>>>does not refute the thesis.
>>
>>BOH:-
>>Right. And if you observe altruism when rb<c, then you have falsified
>>Hamilton's theory.
>
>
>>JE:-
>>All you were referring to was the (neglected)
>>mutualistic side of Hamilton's rule which
>>is considered to be a part of the same rule
>>and _not_ a total contradiction to the rule.
>
>
> BOH:-
> No I wasn't. I actually WAS thinking of the case where c is positive.
> If c is negative (i.e. the act is of benefit to the actor), and b is
> positive, then c<rb.
>
> 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?
>
As far as the rule is concerned, none.
My statement still stands: ...
if you observe altruism when rb<c, then
you have falsified Hamilton's
theory. So, no the mutualistic and altruistic
sides of the rule don't contradict each other.
>snip<
-------------------------End Requested Partial
Repost--------------------------
Dr O'Hara's definitive answer was:
"As far as the rule is concerned, none".
The snipped discussion does not alter
his answer in any way. The problem is,
this snipped discussion is _not_ a valid deduction
from his answer but Dr O'Hara seems to think
that it is. This is because altruism is defined
in just a circular way within the rule, i.e. altruism
is just an invalid tautology. Of course you cannot
observe altruism when rb<c because altruism is
DEFINED as rb>c within the rule. The problem
is, this definition cannot discriminate between
an absolute gain and an absolute loss for the
donor! Only if the rule can measure this critical
difference can the circular definition of altruism
be broken and become testable. This requires an
absolute fitness to be appended to the rule
so that mutualistic and altruistic sides of the
rule now contradict each other. Dr O'Hara's
admission that the "mutualistic and altruistic
sides of the rule don't contradict each other"
is only an admission of the arbitrary nature of
the definition of altruism as rb>c.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: dkomo: "Re: Characterizing complexity"
- Previous message: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: what is life"
- Maybe in reply to: Name And Address Supplied: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
