Re: Issues: A Question Of Integrity (was: Issues)



"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-

> > > JM:-
> > > The 1963 paper says:
> > > As a simple but admittedly crude model we may imagine a pair of
> > > genes g and G such that G tends to cause some kind of altruistic
> > > behavior while g is null.

> > JE:-
> > And CRUDE it remains because all gene fitness epistasis remains
deleted
> > to this very day. When you included it Hamilton's reasoning fails
> > because the rule now becomes: (r^e)^b where e (epistasis) =
(minimally)
> > 2 and not just 1. This forces the cost of proxy reproduction to
increase
> > exponentially so that just a few alleles coding for just the one
trait
> > (let alone all the alleles coding for one maximised organism Fitness
as
> > Fisher wished) makes inclusive fitness non affordable. I find it
amazing
> > that NAS (along with most of the other Neo Darwinians that post
here)
> > simply evade this argument.

> JM:-
>snip<
> Epistasis is irrelevant to Hamilton's rule. It doesn't matter whether
> the altruistic behavior depends upon only one non-epistatic gene or
upon
> the joint effects of 16 epistatic ones. Assuming that each of those
> 16 genes promotes altruism, each and every one of them qualifies as
> a "gene for altruism".

JE:-
Epistasis IS indeed, "irrelevant to Hamilton's rule" but gene fitness
epistasis is NOT irrelevant. Felsenstein made the same error over two
years ago. Both Felsenstein and yourself have missed the most important
point: Hamilton (via Fisher) deleted all _gene fitness epistasis_ when
he deleted all epistasis. Even if Hamilton's altruistic phenotype had no
epistasis, i.e. was polygenetic (the trait varied in a heritable way via
just the simple sum of all the genes that code for it) it was not
FITNESS POLYGENETIC except as a heuristic exercise. This is because not
one single trait empirically exists whereby the fitness of that trait is
just the simple sum of the fitness of each gene that codes for it.
Since Hamilton is taking about FITNESSES in nature and not just about
altruistic traits, his deletion of epistatic fitness is fatal. Inclusive
FITNESSS is not just an altruistic trait it is an altruistic FITNESS.
Thus Hamilton's fitness supposition has to be an "all or nothing fitness
event" because it is a non additive gene fitness event (as are all
empirically based fitness events) unless Hamilton et al are only arguing
a heuristic proposition (which they are!). If two loci are required in
nature to code for one FITNESS (altruistic or otherwise!) all the genes
that code for that FITNESS have to be present for that fitness to exist
and be selected. In exactly the same way the fitness of my thumb cannot
have an independent fitness to my index finger even if the genes that
coded for both were polygenetic. This is because they are only
selectable via the grip (a critical relationship) i.e. they remain just
biologically fitness dependent sub parts and not fitness independent
wholes. What you are failing to grasp is the biological _enormity_ of
Hamilton's fitness oversimplification. Once all gene fitness epistasis
is deleted each allele becomes equal to one entire Darwinian individual!



>snip<

> Your mistake appears to be the assumption that the "purpose" of the
> altruism is to create more altruism in the next generation. If that
> were the case, then I can see how you might be led to think that
> (r^16 b > c) might be the right rule. But the real "purpose" or
"goal"
> of the altruism is to get more copies of the "genes for altruism" into
> the next generation.

JE:-
The event of getting "more copies of the "genes for altruism" into
the next generation" remains _empirically_ dependent on just the ONE non
additive fitness event and not the simple addition of many additive and
therefore independent gene fitness events UNLESS you are restricting all
discussion for the evolution of altruism to just a heuristic exercise.


> snip<

> JM:-
> We simply ask, one gene at a time, "Will the interests of this gene
> be promoted if we act altruistically with rb>c?". The answer is yes
> in each case.

JE:-
Empirically incorrect. The answer is *NO* in each case. This is because
each gene can only be selected at just the one single level because
their fitness relationship is multiplicative and not just additive,
unless you are supposing a heuristic argument where the opposite is only
being imagined.

The Hamiltonian argument is founded on an entirely false inductive
inference: because polygenetic traits empirically exist THERFORE
polygenetic fitnesses also empirically exist. They don't. Not even the
most simple possible one exists. This is where the fitness of one trait
is _empirically_ equal to the simple addition of minimally two
independent gene fitness that code for that trait. Unless the empirical
fitness of the trait is equal to the addition of the empirical fitness
of each of minimally two separate genes that codes for it, gene fitness
epistasis has to be included and not just deleted. I have been posting
the critical difference between a trait and its fitness for over 4
years. However, it remains evaded by everybody.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@xxxxxxxxxx




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hollowness of Hamiltons Rule
    ... > carries the gene for altruism, ... > to its fitness, which means that it will pass on fewer copies of the ... selection event has ever been documented ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • RE: Fw: Edward O. Wilsons "bombshell" on the reality of group
    ... selection -- and the same seems to hold true for humans. ... inclusive fitness concept has always been organism group centric (group ... revolutionary poly-centric argument for the evolution of "altruism" ... argument is argued to be gene centric. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • RE: Darwin and Hamilton
    ... So called "biological altruism" has not been defined in a reasonable way. ... It can be proven that inclusive fitness was and remains ... separation that has to exist between the actor and recipients. ... The uncorrected simplification of Darwinism via the deletion of all gene ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Perpetually Perplexed
    ... Hamilton's incomplete fitness total rb it ... Once again no Darwinian altruism ... gene level of selection within the bodies ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: What is R (relatedness) Suppose to Represent in
    ... >> Organism fitness altruism is NOT just ... which in turn depends upon the altruistic trait being ... Hamilton's Rule does require gene fitness ... can force altruism at an organism ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)