: Re: Issues: A Question Of Integrity



Tim Tyler tim@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
> Subject: Re: Issues: A Question Of Integrity


> TT:-
> snip<
> Surely a more obvious distinguishing case than meiotic drive is
something
> like a bird helping its sister or mother reproduce.
> That phenomenon is very common - and makes no sense on the grounds
> of individual fitness - since organisms are decreasing the expected
> number of their own offspring, in order to assist others reproduce.

JE:-
You have confounded sub selective events with selective events which is
the legacy of the misuse of Fisher's dictate of what is heritable and
non heritable within NATURE. His dictate deleted all _empirically_ based
gene _fitness_ epistasis within Neo Darwinism.

All the events you describe can be explained as organism fitness
mutualism (OFM). No rational imperative exists to _only_ classify the
events you describe as just organism fitness altruistic (OFA). As I
previously requested, please take another look at Hamilton's Rule
multiplied by -1 and observe for yourself the fact that OFA cannot be
distinguished from OFS (organism fitness selfishness) using Hamilton's
rationale. Note that absolutely no OFM is describable using the rule.
Because Hamilton's Rule cannot diagnose any OFM event (it cannot even
separate an OFA event from an OFS event) a huge hole exists within it
through which "since organisms are decreasing the expected number of
their own offspring, in order to assist others reproduce" CAN be
explained using OFM.



Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@xxxxxxxxxx





.