Re: The Irony of Hamilton's Success
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 03/07/05
- Next message: r norman: "Re: Plants, Herbivores and toxins"
- Previous message: Anthony Cerrato: "Re: The overdesigned human brain?"
- 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: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 12:28:29 -0500 (EST)
joe@removethispart.gs.washington.edu (Joe Felsenstein
> JF:-
> I don't recall "abandoning" anybody's arguments..
>snip<
JE:-
I know I do not exist within Prof. Felsenstein's
over simplified model world but unfortunately,
the ideas I present do. The scientific method
(not myself) requires them to be addressed. Felsenstein
cannot validly claim never to have abandoned the
model criticisms I have _repeatedly_ presented here
unless he wishes to deceive sbe readers. Scientific
ideas have a life independent of their author.
For any Prof. of evolutionary theory to ignore
a critical idea simply because he/she dislikes the
author stands in contempt of the scientific method.
Here (again) is what both Felsenstein
and McGinn have failed to address:
1) The probability genes identical must be multiplied
by the probability of genes identical by decent to
form relatedness r as employed within Hamilton's Rule.
Like Haldane's Dilemma, the dispute between McGinn and
Felsenstein does not even exist.
2) Relatedness r is actually r^e where e = epistasis.
Hamilton just fixed e=1 because he deleted all epistasis
via Fisher's dictate. This stated that only non epistatic
traits are heritable and thus selectable when empirically
all gene fitnesses remain epistatic. This means e=2 minimally
within Hamilton's Rule. Using a corrected r^e which meets
just a minimal empirical requirement the rule now requires
a minimum of 1 normal reproduction forgone to equal
16 proxy reproductions making the rule inoperable.
3) Because all gene fitness epistasis remains deleted
within the rule (yet it remains the only verified
gene fitness within nature) a valid rationale for
Hamilton's Rule requires his altruistic gene two pass
two, i.e. not just the one, _independent_ level of
selection within just the ONE same organism. In just
this one body selection at the gene level is supposed
to be able to force organism altruism via selfish geneism.
Nobody has ever explained how such an amazing event
could ever happen. All that has been provided is the
mathematics that allows Hamilton's gene to pass
an impassable double barrier as a "fait accompli".
4) Because no total fitness for the actor exists within
the rule the diagnostic sign of c within it remains entirely
arbitrary. Hamilton's Rule cannot discriminate between
an altruistic fitness loss and a mutualised fitness gain
for the actor. The rule has been entirely misused to support
the evolution of fitness altruism after classical group
selection failed to be able to do so over 50 years ago.
Felsenstein's derivation of the rule from classical
group selection supports the fact that Hamilton's
rule was in fact group selective. The simple fact that
more than one recipient (a minimum of 4 are required
using normal sexual reproduction to total one rb
fitness) has always proven that this was
the case, anyway. The ongoing argument that
Neo Darwinists have put forward to allow fitness
altruism to evolve within nature over the last
50 years has been entirely chaotic.
Why do gene centric Neo Darwinists put their reputations
on the line just to support the entirely non verified view
that fitness altruism exists within nature?
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: r norman: "Re: Plants, Herbivores and toxins"
- Previous message: Anthony Cerrato: "Re: The overdesigned human brain?"
- 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 ]
Relevant Pages
|
