Re: Hamilton's Nonsense

From: Perplexed in Peoria (jimmenegay_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 01/07/05 

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 03:53:32 +0000 (UTC)

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:crikqp$10u0$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> > Your claim that he was not
> > even cognizant of other levels is ludicrous - he was actively
> > fighting the orthodoxy of that era which assumed (somewhat
> > naively) that those other levels were important.
>
> It would seem, if we read your words further
> down on this same post, that he was unsuccessful
> in this fight. In fact, if what you're saying
> is accurate, he switched sided to accept levels
> of selection other than just the organism level.
> Isn't this essentially to concede that his
> organism level version of Hamilton's rule (the
> earlier version) is wrong?

Not wrong, exactly. Merely incomplete. More on this below.

> <snip>
>
> As you state:
>
> > Hamilton jumped off the bandwagon
> > by giving a multi-level selectionist derivation of the rule,
> > based on the Price equation. Since then, it is generally
> > understood that the multi-level selection model (a la Price)
> > and the inclusive-fitness organism-level model of the 1964
> > paper are simply two different ways of looking at the same
> > phenomenon.
>
> This makes no sense at all. If they both look
> at the same phenomena and give two different
> results then we know that at least one of them
> must be wrong. Right?

If they give different, but similar results, then at least one of
them must be partially incorrect. But, to the extent that they
give similar results, it is possible that both are partially
correct.

What you seem to be forgetting here is that we are dealing with
models of reality, not with reality itself. ALL models of
reality - in fact, all elements of scientific knowlege - are
partially wrong. But the good and useful models are also
partially correct. And therein lies their utility.

My choice of the words "perspective" and "viewpoint" in describing
the relationship between model and reality is a metaphor, but
it is a good metaphor. No model can "see" the whole of reality.
Some part of reality is always obscured. But, by looking at
the whole from different directions, using different models,
more and more of reality can be brought into view and properly
interpreted.

Both of Hamilton's models - the 1964 "IBD" model, and the 1970
"regression" model agree in suggesting that unilateral kin-directed
altruism can be favored by selection. The circumstances under
which they are favored are delimited by the rule "rb>c" in both
models. And the fact that the definitions of those parameters
"r", "b", and "c" are slightly different in the two models is
not so important when you realize that in most situations of
biological interest, you get roughly the same values for "r" and
"c/b" regardless of which definition you decide to use.

You also seem to believe that unilateral kin-directed altruism
can be favored by selection. You seem to think that an invocation
of multi-level-selection and some handwaving is all that is needed
to justify this belief. You have not presented a model of your own,
though you seem to be vehemently opposed to Hamilton's models.
And it is becoming more and more clear that you don't even
understand the models that you are criticizing. You didn't
even seem to realize that there were multiple models.

Is there any particular reason why anyone should continue listening
to you?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Evolution or natural selection the driving force?
    ... decoding procedure no longer works, ... reality who has trouble with it. ... saying "selection" - selection what? ... After the storm there was a selection of rocks left on the mountain. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hamiltons Rule Reviewed
    ... allowed to obscure this simple fact of reality. ... and why AEVASIVE preoccupations normally preclude making ... In the acronym for Ambiadvantageously Evolved Vexed Actention ... Selection Involving Various Endorphins, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Tautological Fitness
    ... issue is macroevolution and not microevolution. ... before we can address evolution of a species, ... What reality do I as a  YEC fundamentalist "accept"? ... Nor is selection random. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Geometry, topological relationships, timing mechanisms and
    ... But your perception of reality is encoded with words such as ... selection, random, accumulation, distribution for me to decode. ... Evolutionists don't think their thoughts are conjuring tricks. ... undefined semantics throughout the course of day to day life but still ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Disproof of the Halting Problems Conclusion
    ... "Peter Olcott" wrote in message ... reality. ... want to know how to do non rectangular selection of non-rectangular ...
    (sci.logic)