Re: Hamilton's Rule Reviewed
From: William L Hunt (wlhunt_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 09/01/04
- Next message: Michael Ragland: "Re: limit of selection???"
- Previous message: firstjois: "Re: A Theory of Everything wouldn't solve all the problems of"
- In reply to: John Edser: "Hamilton's Rule Reviewed"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: Hamilton's Rule Reviewed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 15:45:11 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 04:34:42 +0000 (UTC), "John Edser"
<edser@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>1. Introduction
>Hamilton's Rule was used to
>support organism fitness altruism
>(OFA) in nature after classical
>group selection failed to be able
>to do so over 50 years ago.
>It was argued the rule can measure
>when an altruistic gene can spread
>within one population.
>Gene centric Neo Darwinistic
>viewpoints such as Dawkins'
>selfish geneism and Wilson's
>sociobiology remain dependent
>on Hamilton's logic.
>
>
>2. Discussion
>Using Hamilton's Rule
>when:
>
> rb>c ... (i)
>
>where:
>
>r = a defined measure of relatedness
>b = a defined measure of resources
>c = the cost of b in fitness units
>
You have to be careful that your units match of the left and right
side of rb > c. Since r is unitless, b and c must have the same units
(fitness units). From your definitions, it appears c is in fitness
units but b is in some kind of resource units. Unless you meant to
say?:
b = a defined measure of resources in fitness units.
William L Hunt
...
[much snipped]
...
>
>Regards,
>
>John Edser
>Independent Researcher
>
>PO Box 288
>Church Pt
>NSW 2105
>Australia
>
>edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: Michael Ragland: "Re: limit of selection???"
- Previous message: firstjois: "Re: A Theory of Everything wouldn't solve all the problems of"
- In reply to: John Edser: "Hamilton's Rule Reviewed"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: Hamilton's Rule Reviewed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
