Re: Most important paper in evolutionary biology
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:14:32 -0400 (EDT)
"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
> "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 ..
JE:-
This supposed other kind of OFA can be proven _empirically_ *NOT* to be
organism fitness altruism (OFA) but organism mutualism (OFM). I argue this
is the cause of the ongoing misuse of Hamilton's Rule where I might add,
this is *NOT* just a simple question of semantics it remains a critical but
not at all understood question of _empirically_ based (not just
heuristically based) _selective events_ that DO exist within Darwinian
Theory (from which Hamilton's Rule was just an oversimplification).
>(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.
JE:-
Yes, simply because this definition is OFM and *NOT* OFA where OFM verifies
and does not contradict and therefore refute, _empirical_ Darwinian
Evolutionary Theory. It can be proven that OFM is simply NOT addressed by
Hamilton's Rule even though Neo Darwinian's incorrectly claim that it is.
>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.
JE:-
Obviously.
>Alright, here is the second definition:
>A gene is said to cause OFA if it causes a behavior which, on average,
>decreases the fitness of the bearer (called the actor or donor), and
>increases the fitness of some other individual (called the recipient).
>Hamilton says that OFA, under this definition, can be favored by selection
>under some circumstances. The right circumstances are when rb>c.
>The reason why this kind of OFA can increase is that bearers also
>have their fitnesses increased by the behaviors of other bearers.
JE:-
Your "right circumstances" requires a FITNESS TOTAL FOR THE ACTOR (not just
a sub total fitness of the actor) to be actually remain, i.e. NOT become
deleted from both sides of Hamilton's Rule as a critical but entirely
missing, constant term, i.e. the total fitness of the actor must remain on
one side of the rule NO MATTER WHAT. This is absolutely required to provide
a fitness frame of reference which alone can allow OFA to be EMPIRICALLY
separated from OFM within any SCIENTIFIC rationale.
>But if you are using definition #1, you wouldn't count this situation
>as OFA. You would call it OFM.
JE:-
No, you have it in reverse. If you are using definition #2, i.e. NOT #1, you
wouldn't count this situation as OFA. You would call it OFM. Why? Simply
because as well as "bearers also have their fitness's increased by the
behaviors of other bearers", Hamilton's actor, who actually pays the cost c,
can be proven to be required to a make a mutualised fitness investment and
NOT just an altruistic fitness donation in order to avoid extinction.
The actor has an entire LIFETIME (as determined by the total fitness of the
actor which remains deleted from the rule) over which to collect fitness
investment gains for itself. When rb>c the c cost premium paid is just a
confused mutualised insurance premium investment and not an altruistic
donation because Hamilton's gene can only absolutely spread when the TOTAL
fitness of Hamilton's "altruistic" actor INCREASES. Just the relative spread
of Hamilton's gene when rb>c at just one random point in time may mean that
a recipient gain relative to an actor loss only allows Hamilton's gene and
the wild type gene it is competing against to become absolutely less in
frequency (even if one relatively wins over the other) because one or the
other or both have suffered a TOTAL fitness loss forcing both to "evolve" to
extinction as either the number of actors, recipients or both become
absolutely less and less. Unless INTERDEPENDENT mutualised fitness events
are > DEPENDENT non mutualised events within rb>c everything is actually
being argued to be able to be kin selected to extinction. I propose that if
inclusive fitness rationale can select for extinction it is proven to be
just an absurd evolutionary theory proposition.
>snip<
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Most important paper in evolutionary biology
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: Most important paper in evolutionary biology
- Prev by Date: Re: Future evolution of man
- Next by Date: Re: Unequal branch lengths
- Previous by thread: Re: Most important paper in evolutionary biology
- Next by thread: Re: Most important paper in evolutionary biology
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
