Re: Logic of kin selection

From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 01/31/05 

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:17:19 -0500 (EST)

> > NAS:-
> > 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.

> JM:-
> I'm pretty sure that McGinn and Edser don't have the background in
> statistics that they would need in order to understand your derivation.

JE:-
Firstly, unlike the Neo Darwinists that post here
most opponents do not suffer from a
terminal herding instinct. McGinn and myself DO NOT
AGREE so our arguments are NOT complimentary they
are contesting. Is this perfectly clear to NAS?

_______________________________________________
It is convenient for NAS to attempt to deceive
sbe reader's by putting McGinn and myself in the
same boat because all he has to do is sink one boat
and not two.
_______________________________________________

I have agreed that McGinn's opposition to the
rule (IBD as just a probability constitutes an
invalid fitness criterion) was valid but has been
overcome by NAS's derivation of the rule using
regression to measure the relatedness of Hamilton's
gene to an average population relatedness. I am on record
as agreeing that McGinn should pay the $10,000 prize
to NAS. NAS should read these posts much more carefully
so that he does not misrepresent any poster.

I also agree that Hamilton's Rule CAN be MATHEMATICALLY
derived. I also agree that Felsenstein can derive
the rule from classical group selection. However,
I do NOT agree with the way the rule has been interpreted
for over 50 years within the science of biology and
I do not agree that Felsenstein's derivation of
the rule from classical group selection represents
a biological triumph. It is exactly the opposite:
proof of incompetence on the behalf of Neo
Darwinists and proof of misrepresentation.

When group selection was discredited by Neo
Darwinism over 50 years ago the rule was
wheeled out in a desperate attempt to save the
evolution of altruism within NATURE. It turns
out that they are the same THEORY of nature.

It is easy to prove that both Hamilton's Rule
and Classical Group Selection can be derived
from Classical Darwinism via the process of
oversimplification: the deletion of Total
Darwinian Fitness. This is defined to be the
total number of fertile forms reproduced into
one population by each parent. Total Darwinian
Fitness represents a refutable Darwinian maximand
fitness which remains the only refutable maximand
that actually exists within the science of biology.

My criticism of Hamilton's Rule is INDEPENDENT
to JMcG's. Here are a set of questions that I have
asked both NAS and Felsenstein etc which however,
remain UNANSWERED:

1) Is mathematics a science? If not why not?

2) Is Hamilton's Rule 100% Relative?
If so, what is it 100% relative to?

3) Can a mathematical expression that contains
no constant at all (or even just imply one)
e.g. Hamilton's Rule, be validly employed
as a stand alone fitness accounting device
as Hamilton's Rule has been employed within
the biological sciences for over 50 years?

4) NAS has written that Neo Darwinism does
have a fitness maximand: "reproduction".
I asked: the reproduction of exactly what?
NAS has refused to answer.

5) Does NAS agree that the total Darwinian
fitness, as I have defined it, constitutes
a refutable Darwinian maximand? Does NAS
understand the _empirical_ refutation I
have provided of my own maximand fitness
proposition?

6) NAS has argued that this maximand does
not explain the allocation of resources
for sexual reproduction found in nature,
i.e. he has a point of non verification
for my proposed maximand fitness but he
refuses to provide the argument. Why
does NAS only make unfounded propositions?

7) Can NAS, Menegay, Felsenstein, O'Hara
differentiate between a non verification
and a refutation? It appears to me
that they cannot.

To refute Hamilton's Rule all you need to
do is supply one number for just one of 3
variables, that is _prohibited_ by the rule.
While the rule remains 100% relative none
can be provided. This is why the rule is
irrefutable.

8) Does NAS agree that all Neo Darwinian
fitnesses remain ongoing? If so what does
this mean to any science of biology?

9) Does NAS agree that not one single lineal
genomic gene fitness has ever been documented
within nature? If so what does this mean
re: the scientific viability of Hamilton's Model
If not, would NAS (or anybody else here) please
supply just ONE example of a genomic gene
lineal fitness documented within NATURE?

10) Does NAS agree that relatedness within
Hamilton's Rule is r^e and not just r because
Hamilton only mathematically deleted e by
forcing e to always equal 1 in order to delete
ALL epistasis within the rule including
empirical gene _fitness_ epistasis?

11) Does NAS agree that unless e=1 no independent
gene level of selection can exist within the rule
and that this is the only reason as to why Hamilton
simplified r^e to just r^1 = r?

12) Does NAS agree that how close or how far
a gene is to a mean population relatedness
removes the gene as a valid competitive
_parental_ fitness (rb) to Darwinian fitness (c)
whereas IBD preserves this critical rational?
____________________________________________________
In order to preserve an _independent_ genomic
gene level of fitness which is absolutely required
to force altruism at an empirical and independent
Darwinian organism level of selection, e must never
be > 1. Does NAS agree or disagree?
____________________________________________________

13) Does NAS agree with Hoelzer that b/c
constitutes a constant within Hamilton's
Rule? If so, what EXACTLY is this ENTIRELY
MISSING constant?

14) Does NAS agree that the maximal relatedness
that is possible by proxy within Hamilton's
Rule is NOT 0.5 but just 0.25? Is NAS aware that his
incompetent colleagues have routinely confused Haldane's
Pub Rule which does allow a maximal relatedness
of 0.5 for any reproduction by proxy with Hamilton's
rule that does not? Will NAS admit that this has
had a devastating effect on the application of the rule
within nature? If e is restricted to 2 and not just
1 because no lineal gene fitness has ever been
documented within nature, is NAS aware that for
every natural reproduction forgone a
minimum of 16 proxy reproductions is required
where another 50% cost must be added for wastage?

15) Does NAS agree with Felsenstein that reproduction
by proxy produces massive waste that normal reproduction
cannot produce simply because _random_ proxy reproduction
wastes at least 50% of resources and time helping those
_without_ the altruistic gene? Does NAS agree with
Felsenstein's example which calculated this 50% waste
that is NOT paid when normal reproduction replaces
proxy reproduction?

16) Does NAS understand that the problem in 15
is _not_ removed by genome matching, e.g. Dawkins'
Green Beard hypothesis because the geometric
increase in epistatic costs is more than the
lineal gains via genome matching:

        (r^e)b

17) Does NAS agree or disagree with
O'Hara's answer in the following quote:

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

Finally:

18) Does NAS agree that Hamilton's Rule
was misused to replace group selection
as a stand alone fitness accounting
device that was supposed to be able
to separate altruism from non altruism,
over 50 years ago?

Please answer all questions so that
discussion can proceed in an orderly
way.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au

 

 

>