Re: Dawkins Doesn't Mention Virus
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 02/11/05
- Next message: r norman: "Re: How do cells know if they're a skin cell, blood cell, etc..."
- Previous message: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: apes more humanlike in earlier evolutionary times?"
- Maybe in reply to: quattrocchi: "Dawkins Doesn't Mention Virus"
- Next in thread: Jason: "Re: Dawkins Doesn't Mention Virus"
- Reply: Jason: "Re: Dawkins Doesn't Mention Virus"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:14:19 -0500 (EST)
"Jason" <falciparum@hotmail.com> wrote:-
> > JE:-
> > Why doesn't Dawkins' provide just one
> > example documented within nature of
> > a polygenetic (additive) genomic gene
> > fitness because one is _absolutely_ required
> > to allow his "selfish" genes to cause
> > "altruistic" in fitness organisms?
> J:-
> How do you explain altruism?
JE:-
It doesn't exist. All of it is
Darwinian fitness mutualism
where Total Darwinian Fitness
(a refutable maximand of nature)
has NOT been identified
by Neo Darwinian evolutionary
theorists.
The misuse of Hamilton's Rule (which
alone allows the concept of altruism
to just exist within evolutionary theory)
has only provided a scientifically invalid
thesis. Everything this rule
designates as altruism can also be
mutualism except for one instance:
(r^e)b> cmax
where:
cmax is the maximum cost that can be
paid by any donor for b largess donated to
recipients (plural) that can be maximally
related r^e 0.25 . The term e is genetic
epistasis which remains incorrectly fixed to 1
within Hamilton's Rule. The maximal cost
cmax is equal to Total Darwinian Fitness.
The minimum e can be _empirically_ is e=2
because no additive genomic gene fitnesses
have ever been documented within nature.
_______________________________________
In reality each normal reproduction by
the actor = 16 proxy reproductions
minimum and not just 2 reproductions.
_______________________________________
Even disregarding the basic fact that
the rule as it stands is only 100%
relative only allowing the critical
diagnostic sign of c to remain entirely
arbitrary, the rule cannot work
with such an exchange rate.
When the total Darwinian fitness of
the actor is factored into the rule
as not just a cost the rule becomes:-
(r^e)b > m
Where:
m is a deleted constant from the rule
that represents what Neo Darwinians
call a "baseline fitness". What they
have done is just take the tip of a
fitness iceberg to make Hamilton's
critical comparison of (r^e)b to
c using subtraction. Such an
oversimplified comparison remains
scientifically invalid. Not one
single poster within sbe will
respond to this argument.
The single instance of fitness
altruism that requires cmax be paid
by the donor has been deliberately
deleted from the rule. This one
act that can be _proven_ to be fitness
altruistic has never been documented
within nature. It requires an empirical
observation of a biological form becoming
fertile, spending all of its reproductive
resources helping others to reproduce but
never ever reproducing itself. Eusocials
do not fulfil this criterion because
they remain _infertile_.
Political correctness has entirely
biased and distorted the science of
evolutionary theory.
My Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: r norman: "Re: How do cells know if they're a skin cell, blood cell, etc..."
- Previous message: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: apes more humanlike in earlier evolutionary times?"
- Maybe in reply to: quattrocchi: "Dawkins Doesn't Mention Virus"
- Next in thread: Jason: "Re: Dawkins Doesn't Mention Virus"
- Reply: Jason: "Re: Dawkins Doesn't Mention Virus"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
