Re: Most important paper in evolutionary biology
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:44:39 -0400 (EDT)
"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
I would like to make it clear to Jim that I do not write a response until I
have read the entire post that I am responding to. I would like to start to
respond to Jim's last post with a response to something that he wrote at end
of it because this response will sum up my entire case against Hamilton et
al:
>> You keep attacking Hamilton, but you repeatedly fail to state clearly
>> and correctly what Hamilton said. You are not really attacking Hamilton.
>> You are attacking a windmill, a strawman, a figment of your own
>> imagination.
JE:-
My argument was and remains: Hamilton never ever stated "clearly and
correctly" ANTHING THAT IS EMPIRICALLY BASED. Therefore his proposed
rationale for the evolution of OFA within NATURE was never a reasonable
proposition. Will you please indicate (i.e. provide a simple yes or no
answer) that this proposition is now understood by you even if you do not
agree with it?
The proof of the proposition I am arguing is quite simple: multiply both
sides of the rule by -1 and then correctly interpret both rules EMPIRICALLY.
By just doing this, anyone anywhere can now prove to themselves that these
two rules, namely: rb>c and -rb<-c which are indeed mathematically the same,
actually represent EMPIRICALLY REVERSED FITNESS EVENTS. This being the case,
even though comparing rb to c on just a relative basis is logically
possible, NO SENSE CAN BE MADE OF HAMILTON'S LOGIC WITHIN THE SCIENCES
BECAUSE IT ONLY REPRESENTS A FITNESS EVENT CONTRADICTION. This contradiction
is exactly: whereas rb>c is argued by Hamilton et al to represent OFA for
the actor, -rb<-c can be proven to represent OFS (organism selfishness) for
exactly the same actor for exactly the same event. How can the same actor be
simultaneously OFA AND OFS for the same event within any REASONABLE
proposition?
OFA and OFS stand as relative opposite propositions and NOT the same
proposition so they conflict with each other empirically but do not do so
mathematically. On the other hand OFM stands as a total contradiction to
BOTH OFA and OFS. Hamilton's argument does not even provide a logic that can
separate OFA from OFS. Much more importantly, OFM remains 100% excluded from
Hamilton's proposed rationale for the evolution of altruism in nature
despite confused gene centric Neo Darwinian protests to the contrary for
nearly 50 years.
The remainder of my reply dealt with a general discussion as to what I
continue argue needs to be done to allow the rule to become a reasonable
proposition of empirical science and no remain just a valid logical
proposition of non empirically based mathematics. The focus of that argument
was: the total fitness of the actor which is critical Darwinian TDF must
only appear ON JUST ONE SIDE AND NOT BOTH SIDES of Hamilton's Rule for the
rule to be able to discriminate between OFA and OFS and include OFM .
If Will reply to the remainder of your posting shortly. I just wish to make
it very clear before I do so, exactly what my criticism of Hamilton et al
actually is because it appears to me, even after years of posting, you do
not understand it. Please indicate if my argument against Hamilton et al is
clear even if you do not agree with it.
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: A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE
- Next by Date: Re: Article: The man who'd prove all studies wrong
- Previous by thread: Re: Most important paper in evolutionary biology
- Next by thread: Re: Most important paper in evolutionary biology
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
