Integrity

From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 01/20/05 

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:01:55 -0500 (EST)

> > [snip]
> > > > > This means that all genomic genes IBD
> > > > > must compete at a supposed independent
> > > > > level of selection AGAINST every other gene
> > > > > within the same genome allowing fitness altruism
> > > > > to be selected for at a higher level of fitness.

> > [snip]
> > > > JM:-
> > > > Could you explain the reasoning why you say that
> > > > it is competing against genes at other loci?
> > > > If we were discussing meiotic drive, I could maybe
> > > > see it, but we are not; we are discussing altruism.

> > > JE:-
> > > Take two separate organism genomes.
> > > Not every gene within one genome has the
> > > same relatedness IBD to one other gene in
> > > the other genome. ... [snip]

> > JM:-
> > Uh, no. Every gene in the genome has the same IBD relatedness
> > to the corresponding gene in the other genome.

> JMcG:-
> Huh? Every gene?

JE:-
The most simple case of related
or not related at all, proves that
JM is not correct. Since parents
only contribute one of two alleles
at each locus with normal sex
one allele in one genome may not be
related at all to the allele that
occupies the same position at the
corresponding locus in the other
genome simply because that organism
parent did not have that allele.

_________________________________
Here is an empirical test
(NOT just a model) of the
inability of rb to contest c:

If two 100% homozygous parents
mate then all offspring remain a
clone of both but each allele
at each locus still only has a
0.5 probability of being
replicated from a parent _allele_.
This means Hamilton's Rule has to
be applied in this case in exactly
the same way it is applied to non
100% homozygous parents. Throughout
an entire lineage of these
experimental clones which
can only have exactly the same
heritable information because
100% of genetic epistasis is
now included, kin selection will
still be forcing organism
altruism because of selfish
geneism but to absolutely no
avail because each clones
_heritable_ Darwinian fitness
remains the same in each case.
Using this experiment you
can show that rb is not able
to contest c when all c's are
the same but not all rb's are
the same.
__________________________________

Hamiltonian heuristic rb fitness
remains solely concerned
with just the probability that one allele,
now defined as an independent selectable parent
has reproduced the same allele in some other genome.
If more than one allele is required because the
fitness of an organism level trait is now to be
allowed and not just the probability that
Hamilton's one allele has been replicated from
another independent of any organism trait it may
help code for, then IBD relatedness is r^e.

Hamilton deleted e by ONLY setting it to 1
within however a Darwinian selected organism.
In this way he made organism fitness EQUIVALENT
to his required gene level fitness for just his
one case because this is only true in
the single case of e=1, it is not true for
any case where e>1 which is every Darwinian
case. Hamilton's gene is
only equivalent to one organism using just
a single heuristic case: where one genome
only has two alleles at just one locus. Because gene
fitnesses are all non linear every REAL case is
the case where e>1.

Felsenstein glosses over all
of this by only measuring the mean IBD relatedness
that ALL the genes within one _genome_ have
come from one _genome_ as one parent and not
one gene as one parent. He does not
define any total fitness. Hamilton's rb
fitness is never ending but c does
end at cmax. This is why cmax had to be deleted
otherwise it proves that rb remains incomplete
and therefore INCONCLUSIVE. When you compare rb with
c the rule cannot separate altruism from
non altruism because the diagnostic sign of c may
change as a never ending rb changes. What starts
out as altruism (a positive c) may become reduced
as rb changes. This produces the mathematical anomaly
within just a 100% relative rule that c has become
negative allowing a biologically incorrect diagnosis
of non altruistic behaviour. At all times
the sign of c remains arbitrary within
any 100% relative rule so it cannot
be used to separate altruism from
non altruism.

BOH provided
this answer some while back:
--------------quote----------------------

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 --------------------

Nobody, including yourself, will confirm
or refute BOH's answer. Thus I have no
other choice but to conclude that
integrity is being compromised via
continuous evasion.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au

Relevant Pages

  • Re: increase in information represented by DNA
    ... But fitness is a momentary circumstance. ... A' while gene B produces protein B'. ... Is the information in the code of the genome or the result of its ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Exactly what are "recessive genes"?
    ... >> Hamilton's model defines an INDEPENDENT gene level of selection ... >> because that one allele has been granted an independent fitness within ... allele at one locus. ... altruism via selfish geneism within NATURE. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Non-random mutation of the genome from apes to humans
    ... It does not mean that a section of the genome necessarily becomes ... it means that a given trait (and the gene ... an allele becomes fixed if its frequency reaches 1, ... Mutations, their rate of fixation and Kimura's molecular "clock" ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chimps had more positively selected genes than humans
    ... and what the genome comparisons are likely to show. ... ALL of these 154 selected gene changes remain fitness epistatic (non ... documented proves current gene centric population genetics models to have ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Hamiltons Nonsense
    ... > of the gene in the population. ... the wildtype allele) if the mutated allele ... list all over simplifications that Hamilton et al ... the total fitness count of any allele because ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
Loading