Re: Haldane's Dilemma

From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 02/04/05 

Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 01:33:55 -0500 (EST)

> JE:- [addressing ReMine]
> I would strongly suggest that you firstly
> present your own detailed version of Felsenstein's
> argument without comment so sbe reader's can test
> and compare your comprehension of Felsenstein's
> argument against Felsenstein himself.

JM:-
Outstanding advice, John! Really outstanding! Now perhaps
you can apply it to yourself. Present your own detailed
version of Hamilton's argument WITHOUT COMMENT so that
people can compare it to Hamilton, assess your comprehension
of Hamilton, and perhaps see what you have been talking about
for the past four years.

JE:-
Unfortunately the situation is not the same.
Hamilton is not here to address the issue
but Felsenstein is. Only Hamilton et al
is here to address the issue. It appears nobody
within Hamilton et al agrees as to what Hamilton
was actually saying and even more importantly,
they don't seem to agree about its scientific
validity. I question the APPLICATION of the
rule to the science of biology and NOT its
mathematical validity.

Hoelzer has stated that all models
are testable but Felsenstein has stated that
none of them are. Hoelzer has junked Popper
but I have no idea if Felsenstein has.
O'Hara has agreed that the critical diagnostic
sign of c does remain arbitrary within Hamilton's
Rule but Hoelzer has not answered and neither
has Felsenstein. Hoelzer has commented that b/c
is a constant but nobody else here except
myself will even comment.

One of the reasons so much disagreement exists
is that IBD relatedness used as a fitness criterion
by Hmailton was a mean probability. NAS stated that
a relatedness probability represented a _misuse_.
To this end he eliminated it as probability by
just substituting a comparison to a mean population
relatedness. This eliminated the probability but
not the mean. You cannot employ means as valid
_actual_ fitnesses for obvious reasons.
So the issue of relatedness
employed a valid fitness criterion remains
unresolved. Also, all empirical
(fitnesses documented within nature) genomic
gene fitness remain _non_ lineal (epistatic)
but all epistasis remains deleted from the
rule as a simplification. This means no
gene fitness can vere be real within Hamilton's
Rule but the cost c is real.

The only agreement that appears to exist is
that rb>c represents valid mathematics. I
have agreed it is valid mathematics. I have
also agreed that one allele can relatively
(but not absolutely) be measured to increase
compared to another within a 100% heuristic
model genome comprised of just one locus with
two alleles via the rule. I also agree that
Felsenstein can mathematically derive Hamilton's
Rule from Classical Group selection assumptions in
which one group is stated to be selected over
another if it is larger than another
because it is expanding at a faster rate.
My point is that classical group selection
can be proven to be Darwinian selection
operating at just the ONE fertile organism
level of selection so that Felsenstein's
mathematical derivation only proves one
thing: Hamilton's Rule is a simplification
of Classical Darwinian selection.

What I "have been talking about for the past
four years" concerns the _scientific_ validity
of Hamilton's Rule. To be a scientific
proposition the rule must provide a cause
and effect argument. Hamilton et al DO provide
one. At an _independent_ genomic gene level
where all genes now have a lineal fitness
all compete against each other
and do not anymore only cooperate to maximise
one parental total Darwinian Fitness at just
the one fertile organism level of selection.
Only this rational can allow organism fitness
altruism to now be forced at the one Darwinian
level via selfish geneism. The mathematics can only
represent and not replace, this cause and effect
argument provided by Hamilton et al. However, the
reverse is the case. The mathematics has been allowed
to replace its scientific rational where such an
event remains scientifically invalid.

I question the scientific validity of the argument of
Hamilton et al and not the mathematical validity
of Hamilton's Rule. Felsenstein et al refuse to address
any problem concerning the _scientific_ validity of the
rule. When questioned they only reply that the rule
remains _mathematically_ valid. This only constitutes
an evasion of the question.

Haldane's Dilemma suffered from the same
problem: an inability to examine the scientific
validity of the argument that only provided
a totally false dilemma. Only the empirical
evidence forced the dilemma to be "solved"
i.e. hidden away as if it never happened. Even
today the question of the scientific validity of
the argument that provided this false dilemma
remains ignored, i.e. lessons for science as
to why a false dilemma was produced in the
first place (which is the only scientific
value the dilemma has) remains ignored.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

Po Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hamiltons Rule In The Mirror
    ... John Edser wrote: ... Fitness isn't transferred in Hamilton's ... you're confusing mathematics with reality again. ... so long without actually having a clue about what Hamilton said. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Integrity
    ... >> organism units of fitness. ... This is because Mad Hatter Mathematics within ... _fitness totals_ for the same ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Theories, models, and simplifications
    ... Hamilton never, so far as I know, used the variables "b" ... the fitness with all *reception* of social effects ignored. ... with different *reception* of altruism. ... but when you requested a refutation of Hamilton's ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Issues: A Question Of Integrity (was: Issues)
    ... > that mathematics is not a science. ... > supporting specious and non refutable claims for the evolution of OFA ... > Two contradictory claims have been offered so far to explain the fitness ... > group of recipients related r costing the actor 3 organisms ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Hard science of evolution
    ... they look at the math carefully and notice the unrealistic ... running through inertia-less pulleys that you encounter in Physics 101. ... And show that fitness really is heritable. ... always wanted to know if there was mathematics that can be used to ...
    (talk.origins)