Re: Theories, models, and simplifications
From: Perplexed in Peoria (jimmenegay_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 02/03/05
- Next message: John Edser: "Re: Theories, models, and simplifications"
- Previous message: IRR: "Re: Molecular Evolution"
- In reply to: John Edser: "Re: Theories, models, and simplifications"
- Next in thread: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Theories, models, and simplifications"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:54:47 -0500 (EST)
"John Edser" <edser@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:ctr0g0$d25$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
>
> > > JE:-
> > > Please provide:-
> > > a) Your definition c.
> > > b) What you think was Hamilton's definition of c.
> > > Until you answer these two critical questions
> > > discussion cannot proceed in an orderly way.
>
> > JM:-
> > Let me take these two in reverse order.
> > Hamilton never, so far as I know, used the variables "b"
> > and "c". (They were introduced by later commentators
> > on Hamilton - perhaps by Maynard Smith. Does anyone
> > in sbe know for sure who introduced these symbols?)
> > The symbol which (in 1964) Hamilton used for what we now
> > call "-c" was script-delta of "a". The script-delta represents
> > the difference between two alleles. "a" itself is used to
> > represent a portion of the donor's fitness - specifically
> > the fitness with all *reception* of social effects ignored.
> > That is, Hamilton meant for the script-delta of a to *exclude*
> > any differences between genotypes that might be associated
> > with (correlated with) different *reception* of altruism.
> > And on p44 of NROGL, he provides a little table or matrix
> > in which he distinguishes four cases, depending on the signs
> > of c and b. (The symbol he uses for "b" is script-delta of
> > T_nought). Interestingly, he uses the terms "altruistic" and
> > "selfish" as we might expect. However, he does not use the
> > terms "mutualistic" or "spiteful". Instead, he simply says
> > "selected" (for mutualistic) and "counter-selected" (for spiteful).
> > I agree with Hamilton's definition of c. So does the rest
> > of the neo-Darwinist establishment. You, on the other hand,
> > seem to be under the impression that "c" should represent
> > the quantity that would be represented by script-delta of
> > a_dot (in Hamilton's notation). Hamilton uses a_dot to
> > represent the total fitness of the organism - without subtracting
> > out its *reception* of social effects from others.
>
>
> JE:-
> The rational that the total fitness of any organism
> can INCREASE via any so called donation
> AND NOT AN INVESTMENT belies belief.
Ah yes. The old "argument from incredulity". But it is
not clear just what it is that you do not believe here.
Is it:
1. You cannot believe that Hamilton would be so foolish
as to call this phenomenon altruism.
2. or, You cannot believe that I would be so malicious as to
lie about how Hamilton defined altruism.
Which is it John? Please respond.
> Altruism cannot be
> defined as an nvestment for a "donor" GAIN!
Trivers' "reciprocal altruism" might be defined that way.
But I don't think that Hamilton's kin-selected altruism
ought to be called an "investment". The altruism doesn't
exactly *cause* the return.
> Such
> an event reverses any rational concept of what an
> atruistic act actually is. When I pay my car insurance
> I cannot claim to be donating to my insurance company.
> If I did I should be locked up as insane.
Are you saying here that it is a poor choice of terminology
to use the term "altruism" for a situation in which the
donor actually benefits? If so, you are not the first to
make this point.
>
> It is mind numbing nonsense to claim that
> Hamilton's altruistic gene spreads because
> the fitness of the donor has INCREASED
> via some "pay back" "altruism".
I wouldn't call the altruism received by the donor a
"pay back" in Hamilton's kin selection. But it would
be correct to call it a "pay back" in Trivers's theory.
> Such an argument
> is so bitter and twisted it stands as an epitaph
> to an almost total evasion of testable reality.
You seem to be upset!
Let us try to find some point of agreement here. I think
that the following is something that we would both agree on:
If there are no meiotic drive processes operating, the
the only way that a gene can increase in frequency in a
population is for the carriers of that gene to raise more
offspring to maturity than do non-carriers of the gene.
This is true whether the gene is a gene for retractible
claws, a gene for hair color, or a gene for social behavior.
Two questions:
1. Do you agree with that?
2. Do you think that neo-Darwinists are so confused that they
think that altruism is a loophole in the above statement?
> What appears to have transpired is that a straw
> man non atruistic fitness has been set up
> allowing altruism to be _either_ an investment gain
> or a donation. This gerrymander assures that
> altruism will ALWAYS be verified within nature.
Not always. Only if rb>c.
> This mess has remained buried and hidden
> away within the hopeless mathematics of ever on-going
> rb fitnesses where the total fitness of the actor
> has been debiberately deleted. These events are
> either contrived to deceive or they are the acts
> of incompetents.
Well, they certainly seem to have deceived YOU!
> > > JE:-
> > > 1) Define b and c
>
> > JM:-
> >snip<
> > "c" is the cost of behaving altruistically as measured in
> > units of Edserian fitness, and as calculated over the lifetime
> > of the donor.
>
> JE:-
> Hamilton et al never applied a time frame!
> You are inventing a time frame that
> never existed withih the rule to
> evade the fact that all Neo Darwinian
> fitnesses remain ongoing, including
> rb.
John, if you are going to accuse me of "inventing" and "evading"
then you really shouldn't snip the part of my response where
I say where this time frame comes from. Also, if you are going
to write "Hamilton et al never applied a time frame!", then
you shouldn't snip the part where I say that the rule works
with a variety of time frames.
> Here is what I wrote on
> Fri 28/01/2005 3:42 AM
>
> JE:-
> "What people seem desperate to evade is
> the fact that Hamilton's rule only
> takes an _arbitrary_ fitness sample from the
> donor's total fitness.
Again, that word "arbitrary"! Would you care to explain
what you mean by it in this context? And if you choose
to quote the dictionary definition about some person
having discretion, please indicate what person you think
has discretion as to how to take this "fitness sample".
> The reason why all
> Neo Darwinian fitnesses remain ongoing is because the
> total fitness of the donar has been _artificially_
> deleted. This is also the
> reason why no defined time frame exists for
> measuring fitness within the rule and why
> the sign of c must remain arbitrary. The only
> _non_ arbitrary time frame that exists is the time
> taken for one parent to complete reproducing
> fertile forms into one population."
I have no problem agreeing that the time frame you favor
has some big advantages over other time frames. What I
disagree with is your apparent belief that no other time
frame can be made to work. Admittedly, John, it does take
some effort, but you can extend the concept of fitness to
time frames other than the generation.
> You failed to comment.
I've commented now.
> > JM:-
> > That is, it is the cost (counted in fertile children)
> > of behaving altruistically, with the assumption that any
> > "return altruism" still would happen even if the donor were not
> > to behave altruistically.
>
> JE:-
> EITHER the total fitness of the actor increases
> or it decreases.
Agreed. An act either increases or decreases the fitness of
an actor. But I thought that you didn't like to talk about
that "ongoing" stuff. If you want to talk about "non arbitrary"
time frames, then the total fitness of the actor is constant.
The question to ask is whether carriers of the gene have,
on average, higher fitnesses than non carriers.
Hamilton's argument is simply this: If a gene causes an action
that decreases the fitness of the actor (arbitrary time frame),
then the only way it can spread in the population is if
carriers of the gene have, on average, higher total fitnesses
than non-carriers (John's time frame). How can both be true?
How can you have a decrease in the arbitrary time frame and
a higher average total in John's time frame? It happens if rb>c.
> If it increases then the act is an
> investment. If it decreases it was a donation.
Ah! You are unhappy with Hamilton's definitions, and
you want to define some terms yourself. Feel free.
But don't presume that anyone else is obligated to use
your set of definitions.
> That is ALL OF IT. If the increase or decrease
> is only measured using an incomplete fitness
> total then it could mean _either_ because "the fat
> lady has not finished singing".
Exactly! You have it now. A decrease using an incomplete
fitness total may result in either higher-than-average
or lower-than-average total fitness. Hamilton says it
will be higher than average if rb>c.
> _____________________________________________________
> Some argument that the INTENT
> was to donate but "sorry about that folks", it turned
> out to be an investment gain for the donor so that
> only "an altruistic by intent" gene has spread via
> the exact opposite selective event is the most
> amazing Mad Hatter reverse causative argument I
> have ever had the privilege to contemplate.
> ______________________________________________________
Wow, I seem to be in a time warp here. First McGinn does an
excellent imitation of Washburn, and now you seem to be
pretending to be Mary Midgely! "The definition of "altruism"
is misguided because there is no benevolent INTENT"
> > JM:-
> > "b" is the benefit of being the recipient of altruism, as
> > measured in the same units and over the same period.
> > Neither "b" nor "c" can actually be measured for a real-world
> > organism, because the definitions involve a subtraction between
> > an actual measured fitness and a hypothetical measured fitness.
>
> JE:-
> It is nonsense to claim that that c cannot be measured.
> Only rb is a heuristic fitness sub total and not c.
Oh? How would you measure c?
> > > JE:-
> > > 2) State if b/c is or is not a constant
> > > ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS OF
> > > b AND c.
>
> > JM:-
> > It is definitely not a constant, as I understand the term
> > constant. "b" and "c" and their ratio differ from individual
> > to individual (using the "hypothetical" definition of b and c).
>
> JE:-
> Total fitnesses also "differ from individual to individual".
> If they didn't selection would not operate. Such totals
> are constants. As you have previously agreed (but
> have now conveniently forgotten?) the total number of
> fertile forms reproduced into one population
> once completed remains a constant fixed forever
> in natural history.
I said that I now understood how you are using the word "constant".
I didn't agree to use it that way myself!!!
> > > > JM:-
> > > > 1. My claim that carriers of the "gene for altruism" have higher
> > > > Darwinian fitnesses than do non-carriers.
>
> > > JE:-
> > > Then the claim that the actor was altruistic in
> > > paying c for b resources transferred to a number
> > > recipients stands refuted.
>
> > JM:-
> > No, the claim that Edser is using definitions of "b", "c",
> > and "altruism" that are the same as everyone else stands
> > refuted.
>
> JE:-
> Hamilton et al appear to be redefining
> black as white to gerrymander their prefferred
> view. If such an act was a deliberate act of
> deception then things are far worse than I
> ever realised.
Yes, John. It was a deliberate act of deception. Hamilton
chose his definitions in 1964 for the express purpose of
confusing John Edser forty years later.
> > > The above was confirmed by O'Hara:
> > >
> > > --------------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 --------------------
> >
> > I still have no idea what you mean when you say that
> > "the sign of c is arbitrary".
>
> JE:-
> Please ask O'Hara (who for some reason is
> suddenly not posting anything to sbe) because
> he answered the question and it is his answer
> that is under discussion and not my question.
If you will recall, I DID ask him what he meant.
And, regardless of what he meant, he did not use
the word "arbitrary" in saying it. "Arbitrary"
is your word, and I have been unable (after quite
a few attempts) to get you to say what YOU mean by
it!
[snip remainder for reasons of brevity (and exhaustion)]
- Next message: John Edser: "Re: Theories, models, and simplifications"
- Previous message: IRR: "Re: Molecular Evolution"
- In reply to: John Edser: "Re: Theories, models, and simplifications"
- Next in thread: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Theories, models, and simplifications"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
