Issues: A Question Of Integrity (was: Issues)



"John S. Wilkins" john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-

> > > > > JF(?):-
> > > > > The difficulty is that the public sees science through their
> filter.
> > > > > This can really distort things. For example, in evolutionary
> biology
> > > > > many readers are convinced that the old stuffy boring
neodarwinian
> > > > > synthesis was long ago thrown out and replaced by some
exciting
> new
> > > > > theory involving Complexity and Punctuation and Cladistics.
Only
> it's
> > > > > not at all clear what this new theory is (for a simple reason,
> namely
> > > > > that there isn't a coherent new theory that connects these
> buzzwords
> > > > > at all). Filling in the details and explaining the context is
not
> a
> > > > > strength of science journalism. They are on to the next area
and
> the
> > > > > next deadline instead.
> > > >
> > > > The new theory may not exist yet,but I've got a name picked out
-
> the
> > > > Postmodern Synthesis :-)

JE:-
But "the old stuffy boring neodarwinian synthesis" never constituted a
refutable theory of nature, just an oversimplified model of such a
theory. The "neodarwinian synthesis" was and remains the first
"Postmodern Synthesis" attempted within evolutionary theory where the
critical fitness concept remains relative to something left entirely
undefined.

Hamilton's Rule is used to diagnose when an "altruistic" gene could
spread. In essence Postmodernism means "everything is relative" and
indeed, everything within Hamilton's Rule does remains relative. It is
argued that when rb>c Hamilton's gene for "altruism" spreads where
"altruism" is diagnosed as any positive c (a fitness quantity
transferred by Hamilton's one and only proactive actor). When rb>c a
gene can be argued to just relatively spread but not absolutely spread.
Just a relative comparison between rb and c allows a mechanism for HOW a
gene may be able to relatively spread but only contradictory reasons as
to WHY the frequency of Hamilton's allele may have increased compared to
the wild type allele at just the same, one locus. Evolutionary theory
requires a testable theory of WHY it has spread and not just HOW it may
spread. As a result "altruism" cannot even be separated from
"selfishness" when employing Hamilton's rule while much more importantly
"mutualism" cannot be diagnosed at all. Yet it is still erroneously
argued that a negative c (because it is an actor credit) is supposed to
be able to validly diagnose mutualism when insufficient information
exists to be able to do so. These charges can be proven by multiplying
the rule by -1 providing a transformation of the rule:

rb>c ... (Hamilton's Rule)

-rb<-c. ... (Transformed Rule)

These two rules provide exacty the same mathematical result but reverse
the sign of c in each case where only the cost c represents the critical
gross cost actually paid by Hamilton's only Darwinian and proactive
actor (Hamilton's group selective rb recipients are defined to remain
passive). Any negative c represents a fitness CREDIT for Hamilton's
actor while any positive c represents a fitness DEBIT for the same actor
in either rule. Clearly, just the one same fitness quantity cannot be
entered as both a credit and a debit in the fitness account books being
kept for Hamilton's single proactive actor. Again I am forced to point
out that such erroneous accounting represents the same false logic
employed by Enron accountants.

I do not accuse any Neo Darwinist of deliberate fraud just chronic model
misuse which I argue is most probably produced by a misunderstanding of
the critical difference that exists between empirically based science
and non empirically based mathematics. I have continuously debated this
and similar basic issue within sbe over many years yet not a single gene
centric Neo Darwinists that posts here will reply to the argument
presented. At all times this argument which remains entirely refutable,
is just evaded.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@xxxxxxxxxx






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Most important paper in evolutionary biology
    ... I will offer two definitions of OFA. ... > organism fitness altruism but organism mutualism. ... >>A gene is said to cause OFA if, on average, having the gene decreases ... > Your "right circumstances" requires a FITNESS TOTAL FOR THE ACTOR (not just ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Issues: A Question Of Integrity
    ... > pretty much at the heart of kin selection theory to me. ... The only way out was gene ... Such an event requires gene fitness epistasis to suddenly become "non ... represents a fitness DEBIT for the actor because the actor provided b to ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Removing Lewontins Fallacy From Hamiltons Rule
    ... fitness epistasis which remains total per gene per genome. ... of genes over _organism_ generations of these genes. ... r = relatedness of the actor to the recipients ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Underestimating r
    ... EMPIRICAL acts of altruism. ... CONTRARY event for exactly the same actor. ... fitness contrary rules which however, ... What this amended rule is stating is that Hamilton's altruistic gene can ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Issues: A Question Of Integrity (was: Issues)
    ... >>> spread. ... Accounting rules demand that a SELF EXCLUSIVE choice always ... >>> account of Hamilton's only proactive actor it cannot be BOTH. ... >> The amount b is credited to the fitness account of the RECIPIENT, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
Loading