Re: Most important paper in evolutionary biology


"Guy Hoelzer" <hoelzer@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dgqsnd$574$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> in article dgpit7$2mgg$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Perplexed in Peoria at
> jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 9/20/05 11:03 AM:
>
> > "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:dgncd3$1rpo$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> "Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
> >>> I don't think I have ever claimed that Hamilton corrects errors
> >>> in Darwin. I don't think anyone else has claimed it either.
> >>> (Except perhaps Edser, and he doesn't think that it is a 'correction'.)
> >>
> >> JE:-
> >> Hamilton's rationale refutes Darwin and Wallace's rationale entirely, if and
> >> only if, Hamilton's Rule can be proven to explain the evolution of organism
> >> fitness altruism (OFA) in NATURE. This is because OFA remains _entirely_
> >> prohibited by Darwin and Wallace. [snip another confused 'mirror' argument]
> >
> > I think that the heart of your confusion is an important distinction in
> > the definition of OFA. I will offer two definitions of OFA. Under one
> > of these definitions, I will agree that Darwin and Wallace would say that
> > it is prohibited - that it can't evolve. The thing is, I claim that
> > Hamilton would agree with them. He would also say that that kind of OFA
> > can't evolve.
> >
> > But there is another kind of OFA (a second definition) which Hamilton would
> > say can evolve. I claim that Darwin and Wallace never really thought about
> > this kind of OFA (except maybe as applied to parental care). But if they
> > had thought of it, they would agree with Hamilton.
> >
> > Here is the first definition:
> > A gene is said to cause OFA if, on average, having the gene decreases
> > the fitness of the bearer (called the donor), and increases the fitness
> > of some other individual (called the recipient).
> >
> > I suppose we need to define fitness here - I am happy to accept your
> > usual definition of TDF.
> >
> > I suppose I also have to defend those words 'on average'. I put them there
> > because sometimes organisms do really stupid things. The important issue
> > for evolution is not whether an organism ALWAYS acts to maximize its TDF -
> > it is whether its traits tend to increase TDF on average.
> >
> > Ok, given this definition, does Hamilton say that OFA can evolve? I claim
> > he does not. It is pretty much obvious that a gene causing OFA using
> > this definition is headed for extinction. The gene has no way of getting
> > into the next generation except by its bearers having fertile offspring,
> > and the OFA gene BY DEFINITION causes its bearers to have fewer children
> > on average. Hamilton was not stupid enough to say that this gene could
> > be favored by evolution. Obviously, it can't.
>
> I have to disagree with you here, Jim, although not about altruism or kin
> selection. I disagree on another basis that neither Darwin or Wallace ever
> considered: selection at the level of the gene. ...

Shhhhh! I didn't want to alarm John. But you are right. In my 'proof'
that a gene reducing TDF can't be favored, I was ignoring the possibility
of segregation distorters. I guess I should have said that Hamilton was
not stupid enough in 1964 to say that an OFA-reducing gene could be
favored by evolution . He didn't become that stupid until he had read
Dawkins. ;-)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Most important paper in evolutionary biology
    ... >>in Darwin. ... This is because OFA remains _entirely_ ... Hamilton would agree with them. ... A gene is said to cause OFA if, on average, having the gene decreases ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Most important paper in evolutionary biology
    ... >>>in Darwin. ... I will offer two definitions of OFA. ... >Hamilton would agree with them. ... organism fitness altruism but organism mutualism. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Most important paper in evolutionary biology
    ... I will offer two definitions of OFA. ... >> A gene is said to cause OFA if, on average, having the gene decreases ... >> the fitness of the bearer, ... >> into the next generation except by its bearers having fertile offspring, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The "fuel" of evolution
    ... >> between the one where the gene acts, and the last relative to be ... Darwin, for all his gifts, ... (the selection of anything by default) ... within Darwin's writings fitness is implied. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Commentary: Intelligent Design, and Other Dumb Ideas
    ... antibiotic resistance gene. ... it will then grow to take over the entire culture -- ... What Darwin did propose is that organisms that are able to create more descendants from the same resources will tend to displace those that can not. ... Gradual Evolution that Wikipedia is refusing to publish: ...
    (talk.origins)