Re: Misrepresentation of Popper
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:32:25 -0400 (EDT)
> >>>>JE:-
> >>>>For the 2nd time:
> >>>>WOULD ANYBODY: please provide a definition of b within Hamilton's
Rule
> >>>>so that it now constitutes a valid finite and non transferabl
fitness.
>
> >>>BOH:-
> >>>We have. Many times. It appears that you have a rather different
> >>>concept of validity to the rest of us.
> >> JE:-
> >> Nonsense. Hoelzer dictates that b is just (yet another) Neo
Darwinian
> >> heuristic exercise. The variable b within Hamilton's Rule has
never
> >> been defined as a finite reproductive fitness ...
> > BOH:-
> > Of course not. It's not been defined as the number of bum notes
played
> > by jazz musicians per minute either.
>snip repeats<
> BM:-
> But, Bob, if he did that he would find that Hamilton did provide a
> definition of fitness that roughly corresponds to John's idea of total
> number of offspring of the individual. At least that is what I
understand
> from Dawkins' discussion of fitness in The Extended Phenotype. But
that
> definition of fitness puts the phenotype back as the unit of
selection,
> and since that would mean that Hamilton agrees with John, it would
ruin
> John's day - he would have to stop railing against Hamilton's rule and
go
> back to ranting about gene centrism.
JE:-
Hamilton's rule was and remains, 100% gene centric because all gene
fitness epistasis was artificially deleted. It appears the Neo
Darwinists that post here do not realise that such a basic deletion
allows each genes fitness to become 100% INDEPENDENT PROVING GENE
FITNESS CENTRICITY. However, in biological reality, i.e. EMPIRICALLY,
all gene fitnesses remain fitness epistatic, i.e. FITNESS DEPENDENT and
not fitness independent, no exceptions. Not a single non epistatic gene
fitness has ever been documented within nature. If you allow the only
valid minimal EMPIRICAL relatedness r that actually exists in nature to
be e = 2 within r^e, i.e. define a minimal empirical epistasis and
disallow Hamilton's e=1 (which ended up with e being deleted entirely
only leaving r) the minimal cost of just one normal reproduction blows
out to 16 proxy reproductions and not the 2 proxy reproductions allowed
by Hamilton et al, making Hamilton's Rule inoperable.
Apart from e=2 minimally and not just 1, this due to the fact that b is
measured as a fitness gain for the offspring of the parents helped and
NOT their parents, i.e. one more generation removed. Only Haldane's Pub
Rule defines the parents to be assisted and not their offspring. Within
Hamilton's Rule only the offspring are defined to be fitness assisted so
that r = 0.25 as the maximal relatedness of Hamilton's recipients and
not the r = 0.5 using normal sex. The 0.5 figure commonly employed
within the literature within Hamilton's Rule has always been a serious
error. It allowed a 100% error bias for the evolution of altruism as
measured by the rule. Even as an invalid 100% relative proposition
Hamilton's rule fails when it is required to meet just a MINIMAL
biological FITNESS condition. Is Dr Morse prepared to defend Hamilton's
Rule against this basic argument? I think not! I have posted it several
times before, some in reply to Dr Morse. Always, this argument remains
ignored simply because it is correct. Is Morse et al aware that a
continued strategy of evasion constitutes proof of incompetence on
behalf of the evader?
Only a lip service was paid to fitness totals by W.D. Hamilton.
Fitnesses as totals were never ever included within Hamilton's Rule
reducing it to be just a 100% relative proposition. When you multiply
such a rule by -1 you produce the mirror image of the original rule
which is mathematically equal but NOT identical. Note: the mirror image
illustrates 100% relative selfishness and not 100% relative altruism.
NAS's argument that only because the rule and its mirror image have the
same magnitude must mean that they can be validly regarded as identical
allowing both to be altruistic remains hopelessly incorrect. Hamilton's
100% relative Rule cannot distinguish 100% relative selfishness from
100% relative altruism even as just a proposition of mathematics (let
alone distinguish either of these from mutualism) simply because the
diagnostic sign of c within any 100% relative proposition has no other
choice but to remains 100% arbitrary. What Hamilton's rule may or may
not be doing as a valid proposition of biology, i.e. not as just a
proposition of mathematics, remains entirely *OUTSIDE* of mathematics
because this depends on why -rb is not identical to +rb and -c is not
identical to +c within the mirror image. Every Neo Darwinist that posts
here flatly refuses to discuss such a basic issue. They all attempt to
confine the rule to remain a valid proposition of mathematics when
everybody knows mathematics is not a science. At some stage the rule has
to be validly and not invalidly employed as a proposition of *SCIENCE*.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: OOL X - The origin of the RNA world.
- Next by Date: Re: OOL VIII - The Last Major Morphological Transition
- Previous by thread: Re: Misrepresentation of Popper
- Next by thread: Re: Misrepresentation of Popper
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
