Re: Logic of kin selection

From: Name And Address Supplied (name_and_address_supplied_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 01/29/05 

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:44:16 -0500 (EST)

joe@removethispart.gs.washington.edu (Joe Felsenstein) wrote in message news:<ct93pl$130$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
> Now, let's see what Hamilton's formula would give. As they are siblings
> half the time, the IBD would be (1/4). So the condition for A to increase
> would be c < (1/4)b.
>
> So Hamilton's formula did just fine here. There was no sign of any
> problem with it in this model case.
>
> So, is everyone in agreement?

Joe,

I think that while specific examples are helpful to those who are
genuinely interested in the logic of kin selection, they are not
capable of dealing with the criticisms which have been aired in this
newsgroup. Only a general proof of Hamilton's rule, followed by
rebuttals of suggested counter-examples, will suffice. I have provided
the former -- the general proof -- in the "Jim's Hamilton Prize
thread", which has been completely ignored by Jim, as far as I can
tell. I have emailed Jim about this; the email I sent was also
ignored.

Until Jim McGinn and John Edser respond to my general derivation of
Hamilton's rule, I don't see the point of you giving up time on this
issue. That *would* be a disservice to science.