Re: Hamilton's Rule In The Mirror

name_and_address_supplied_at_hotmail.com
Date: 03/29/05 

Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:29:13 -0500 (EST)

John Edser wrote:
> > > > BOH:-
> > > > No, John. It's the change in fitness of the recipient, due to
the
> > > > action of the actor.
>
> > > JE:-
> > > Hi Bob,
> > > Absolutely not. The variable +b is strictly the movement of
> resources
> > > from the actor to recipients such as food, protection taking or
> risks
> > > etc. These resources can only become a fitness when multiplied by
> +r,
> > > i.e. only the entire multiple rb (which is just a probability)
can
> > > ever
> > > represent a valid fitness.
>
> > NAS:-
> > Whoa! John, these a gross misunderstandings of what Hamilton's rule
is
> > saying. No wonder you think it's wrong! I'm not sure quite what
your
> > interpretation of the rule is, but "b" is defined as the fitness
> > benefit to the recipient -- it *is* a measure of fitness.
>
> JE:-
> You can define b to be anything you like *EXCEPT* a transferred
fitness.
> Any fitness is:
>
> 1) An independent unique event.
>
> 2) Totally non transferable.
>
> All you are doing is redefining b resources to becomes a convenient
> "hand waving fitness" which can be transferred by magic to
recipients.

I didn't say anything about transferring fitness, John. All I'm saying
is that there is a certain class of behaviours -- social behaviours --
which impact on the fitness of individuals other than the actor. When
these other individuals -- call them social partners -- are related to
the actor, there are interesting consequences for how selection
operates on such behaviours. Hamilton's rule states that the social
behaviour is favoured when rb>c, i.e. when the 'benefit' to the
recipient, weighted by the relatedness of the recipient to the actor,
is greater than the 'cost' to the actor. It could be that the actor
transfers some food to the recipient. Or it could be that the actor
gives an alarm call when she sees a hawk swooping to attack the social
partner. Either way, there will usually be fitness consequences for
both individuals. b measures the fitness consequences for the social
partner, and c measures the fitness consequences for the recipient. b
and c do not need to be equal. There is no magic involved. Just a
transfer of resources or information or whatever. The mechanism is
implicit -- you use your understanding of the mechanism to generate the
b and c. Hamilton's rule then tells you how these are of interest when
determining the direction of selection on the social trait.

> > NAS:-
> > The problem
> > is that recipient fitness does not directly translate into actor
> > fitness, ..
>
> JE:-
> Exactly. This is why only resources but not fitnesses are actually
> portable.

I have never claimed that fitness is portable. But I have claimed that
individuals can behave in ways such that their own fitness is modified
and the fitnesses of others is also modified. Do you disagree with
that?

> > NAS:-
> > ..and it is the actor's (inclusive) fitness that is of interest
> > here.
>
> JE:-
> Inclusive fitness is ENTIRELY dependent on just a (sub) total of
normal
> reproductions completed by all the recipients as one group selective
> fitness count. This is limited by BOTH b resources transferred and
the
> how closely the recipients are related r to the actor. No fitness is
or
> can be, transferred.

Enough about the transfer of fitness already! Noone has made such a
claim. Give it up!

> > NAS:-
> > The actor discounts the fitness of relatives by a certain amount,
> > depending on how close the relatedness. Thus "b" units of fitness
for
> > the recipient is worth "rb" units of fitness for the actor.
>
> JE:-
> Transferred b units of fitness cannot exist because fitness is NOT
> portable.

Yawn.

> Only mathematicians could make such a basic biological error.

Or Enron accountants. Don't forget those guys!

By the way, who are you calling a mathematician? Me? Hamilton? Who?

> The variable b can only represent a diverse pool of resources that
are
> transferred to recipients. Once transferred Hamilton's Rule requires
you
> to wait and see what these recipients actually do with this resource
> transfer. IF they turn this transfer into more reproductives than the
> actor then rb > c.

What? b is DEFINED as the direct fitness consequence for the social
partner, c is DEFINED as the direct fitness consequence for the actor,
r is DEFINED as the relatedness of the former to the latter individual.
With this in mind, you have to agree that what you have written is
drivel. As I said before, John, I'm not interested in continuing this
discussion about Hamilton's rule unless you start referring to the real
Hamilton's rule. At the very least, please acknowledge that your
definitions for the components of the rule are wildly different from
the definitions that are used in the literature!

> The only units of fitness that actually exist within
> the rule before the resources are transferred are the actor's normal
> reproductives FORGONE, i.e. c. What does tell you about Hamilton's
Rule?

That you don't understand it. That you do not appear to have read any
of the primary scientific literature on this subject that you claim to
have such expertise. That rumours of its failure are greatly
exaggerated.

> > NAS:-
> > r is simply
> > a conversion factor for switching between different currencies.
>
> JE:-
> All r can do is rationalise the resource transfer. It is ASSUMED that
> when b resources are transferred to recipients related r (which are
the
> _offspring_ of the parents receiving the help and not their parents
> making r = 0.25 max using normal sex and _not_ 0.5 as it is commonly
but
> erroneously assumed) then the fitness of those helped *CHANGES*. Now
you
> have to wait to see what actually happens.

Right, so if I hand out apples these will somehow, miraculously, be
more nutritious for my closer relatives than for unrelated recipients
of my generosity?

Wow, you really have lost it!

> IF this change provides a sub
> total increase in normal reproductions for the recipients helped,
i.e.
> produces a group selective fitness increase which happens to be
greater
> than the number of normal reproductives forgone by the actor THEN
> Hamilton's gene can increase on however, just a hopeless 100%
relative
> basis.

I don't even know what you are trying to say, John.

> > NAS:-
> > The reason we do this is that the social act -- let's assume
altruism
> for
> > now -- incurs a cost c for the actor and a benefit b for the
> recipient.
>
> JE:-
> Time exists between these two biological events where the following
must
> transpire:-
>
> 1) Finite resources must firstly be partitioned within the actor into
> survival and reproductive portions.
>
> 2) All or part of the reproductive portion must become transferable
as a
> viable but portable resource and then successfully transferred.
>
> 3) This resource transfer has to translate into an increase in the
> natural reproduction of a sub total of recipients as one inclusive
> fitness sub total which is just a group selective fitness.
>
> 4) Nature (not the actor) must compare the grouped selectee fitness
with
> the non grouped selective fitness cost c.

Is there any point to this rambling? I have said over and over that I
understand group selection and kin selection to be fundamentally the
same process. Can we get back to inclusive fitness, and away from the
levels-of-selection point of view -- simply by pointing out that social
behaviours are subject to group selection will not convince me that
Hamilton's rule does not work!

> > snip repeat of the argument under question<

In the interests of clarity, please refrain from adding ">"s before
your text when replying to me, as some innocent onlooker might suspect
that I've been making your ridiculous claims.

> > NAS:-
> > I am also shocked by your comment that "rb" is "just a
probability". A
> > probability of what, John? rb is a component of inclusive fitness 

--
> it
> > can exceed 1 and it can also be lower than 0; it is emphatically
NOT a
> > probability.
>
> JE:-
> Yes it is (at least make an attempt to remember the argument of any
> adversary even if you do not like it). I repeat: Relatedness r must
> remain IBD which is just a probability. It is *NOT* a comparison to a
> mean population relatedness because your method does not allow the
> parents to identify their offspring or offspring to identify their
> parents.
There is no need for kin recognition. Hamilton's rule works even in the
absence of kin recognition. It works even in the absence of
genealogical closeness between social partners -- as the greenbeard
example shows.
> Your calculation only constitutes an anonymous number which
> cannot be included as a valid fitness for anything.
Who said r was a "valid fitness"?
>  If r is just a
> probability then rb is also just a probability.
You're nuts!
> > NAS
> > Now, regardless of whether Hamilton's rule is correct or not, my
> > interpretation of the rule is conventional, and yours is not. I
want
> > you to acknowledge this before we move on, or else I see no point
in
> > continuing this discussion.
>
> JE:-
> Convention is not the issue.
Well, it is for me. I'm only interested in the real Hamilton's rule,
the one that evolutionary biologists use. If that Hamilton's rule
works, but yours doesn't, that's fine by me. I just won't use your
flawed Hamilton's rule.
> IF convention dictates that fitnesses are
> portable or that an anonymous number can validly represent a fitness
> THEN convention is BIOLOGICALLY wrong.
Then it's fortunate that it is not the conventional Hamilton's rule,
but rather the silly one that you've created, that makes these
ridiculous claims!
Wow, that actually looks like a good place to tie up this discussion. A
result, for once!

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hamiltons Rule In The Mirror
    ... In Hamilton's Rule b represents resources ... The fitness benefit derived from the movement of b ... fitness sub total rb unless the recipients get something for nothing. ... the recipients of b resources are not related enough to the actor then ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • RE: Issues: A Question Of Integrity (was: Issues)
    ... exactly the same FITNESS events do NOT happen using both rules. ... From the actor to the recipient. ... The same logic applied to the recipients ... via the transfer of x resources from the actor to the recipients via the ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Hamiltons Rule In The Mirror Corrected
    ... fitness and not the resources that can limit fitness are allowed to be ... maximal relatedness of the actor to the donor to be just r=0.25 and not ... parents to become recipients allowing r to be maximally 0.5 and not 0.25 ... a mirror reflection of the Hamilton's rule is ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Hamiltons Rule In The Mirror
    ... In this case the actor does not steal from ... recipients he/she provides recipients with ... of recipient fitness costing the actor -c because ... The mirror image of a ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Hamiltons Rule In The Mirror Corrected
    ... just a relative fitness proposition ... > Hamilton's actor remains in the same predicament as an observer. ... > cost (the relative cost to the actor after gains to the actor have been ... > Only a fitness transfer reversal, i.e. from recipients to the actor can ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
Quantcast