Re: The Irony of Hamilton's Success

• Previous message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Species Selection Redux"
• Maybe in reply to: Josh Hayes: "Re: The Irony of Hamilton's Success"
• Next in thread: Claudius: "Re: The Irony of Hamilton's Success"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]

Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 23:01:22 -0500 (EST)

> Hamilton's notion that
> genes that are identical will be causally distinct
> based on how they got to be identical is
> pseudoscience.

JE:-
Hamilton's notion was correct but not RATIONALLY
implemented for what I can only describe as
reprehensible reasons. The probability
of genes identical must be multiplied
by the probability of genes identical
by decent. Just one probability without
the other remains insufficient to measure
any FITNESS. Felsenstein could have settled
this debate very easily if he had pointed
out this simple fact. He didn't and
refuses to comment. This leaves
sbe reader's no choice but to speculate
as to why he refused to point this out
and settle this debate.

The multiplication of these two probabilities
rationally required Hamilton's gene to be
_independently_ selected at TWO levels of
selection within just the ONE body: the Darwinian
organism level and the Hamiltonian genomic gene
level. The cost c represented the Darwinian organism
level and rb the contesting Hamiltonian gene level.
No rationale has ever been provide as to how Hamilton's
gene could ever be selected at two INDEPENDENT levels
of selection within just the ONE body! Felsenstein
is desperate to avoid having to provide this missing
rationale so he avoids this solution to the
debate. The mathematics does NOT include any
rationale, it just assumes this impossible barrier
for Hamilton has actually been crossed as a
"fait accompli".

The probability that gene A is identical in
one body compared to gene B in another
body is NOT sufficient to allocate a fitness
because the parent has not been identified.
All fitnesses must be allocated to a defined
parent within the science of biology. Until
this has been done genes identical is meaningless
as a FITNESS. In order to identify the parent
the probability that gene A was replicated
from gene B must also be established. This is
the probability genes IBD.

"Hamilton's notion" was that within rb his gene
must be BOTH identical and identical by decent,
i.e. both probabilities have to be multiplied.
However this was never done. Genes identical
was just deleted as yet another simplification.
The numerical error is small but the rational
error remains enormous. Felsenstein wishes to
evade the exposure of the enormity of this
error re: the missing rationale for the rule
attempting to pass off the mathematics as all
that is necessary. It isn't and never was.
Eventually he will have to answer. You can
only fool the people some of the time.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au

• Previous message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Species Selection Redux"
• Maybe in reply to: Josh Hayes: "Re: The Irony of Hamilton's Success"
• Next in thread: Claudius: "Re: The Irony of Hamilton's Success"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]