Re: Holowness of SBE

From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 12/10/04 

Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 05:35:59 +0000 (UTC)

Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote:-

> > > > JE:-
> > > > The value r cannot be zero unless life was not decended
> > > > from just one common ancestor.

> > > JM:-
> > > There are two different versions of "r" being confused here.
> > > What you say is correct for "IBD_r". I was referring to
> > > "regression_r", which can be zero or negative.
 
> > JE:-
> > Regression does not help because
> > a negative r only remains biologically
> > _meaningless_ and just a zero r means all
> > life is not descended from just the one
> > common ancestor no matter what mathematics
> > is that is employed to calculate r. EITHER we
> > are all descended from just the one common ancestor
> > or we are NOT. The rule of parsimony insists that
> > we must assume that all life is descended from the
> > one same ancestor until it is proven otherwise. To
> > ignore parsimony is to reduce the efficiency
> > of the biological sciences, i.e. waste time and
> > money on pointless research (even if it is other
> > peoples money!).

> TT:-
> To recap, "negative r" means that in individual shares
> even fewer genes with you than a randomly-chosen member
> of the population would.
>
> In a resource-limited environment, actions that help any
> individuals with negative r, would usually [*] have a
> negative impact on the proportion of the helper's
> genes that can be expected to survive.
>
> [*] if you ignore species-level selection, etc.

JE:-
My understanding is that the only point in replacing
IBD with regression analysis is to attempt to remove probability
within Hamilton's rb fitness count (IBD is just the probability
one gene was replicated from it's parent gene over however, organism
and _not_ gene generations making Hamilton's measure of relatedness
just logically self inconsistent) because c, to which rb is to be
compared by simple subtraction, is NOT just a probability. Reducing r to
now become only a comparison to the relatedness you would expect from
"a randomly-chosen member of the population" simply replaces one
probability with yet another. However, now no way exists to
actually measure relatedness! Please provide the so far entirely missing
measuring mechanism for calculating so called shared genes that
is not just an IBD measure so you can _know_ that a negative r means
an "individual shares even fewer genes with you than a randomly-chosen
member of the population".

What is happening here is that it is finally being
acknowledged that r (IBD) as just a probability
always constituted a misuse within Hamilton's fitness
count rb which was compared within the rule by simple
subtraction to c, simply because c represented a hard
and testable to refutation number that was NOT just
a probability. In fact cmax represented the missing
total fitness of the actor. Hamilton's Rule is just
an unnecessary gamble on the part of an actor for
nothing that can be measured. Neo Darwinists
bumbling attempts to replace IBD with a regression
analysis reduces relatedness to 100% relative nonsense.
I repeat, negative r only constitutes a _biologically_
meaningless term. Either you are related or you
are not. Assuming you can be less than not related
will always constitute Mad Hatter nonsense.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au

 

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Units of IBD
    ... >>> IBD does have units. ... >> make out of your claim that all probabilities have units. ... > number of genes that are identical. ... if you continue to think that "relatedness" means ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Holowness of SBE
    ... >> genes that can be expected to survive. ... > IBD with regression analysis is to attempt to remove probability ... > now become only a comparison to the relatedness you would expect from ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Incompetence
    ... IBD is the multiple of TWO probabilities: ... same gene: measured by genes nonIBD ... The probability that the gene was replicated ... > sequences include blind chance and convergent ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Hamiltons rule
    ... >> It is talking about the correct meaning of IBD 'r'. ... >>> genes being defined to be very small. ... >> you have not been talking about the same thing as Hamilton. ... levels of sequence similarity are evidence of inbreeding. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • RE:: Lottery tickets
    ... by Darwinian selection. ... The proposition that random events alone can ... > (Genes that are IBD differ from non-IBD genes in an ... RELATEDNESS IBD is not the same as genes IBD. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)