Re: Underestimating 'r'


Catherine Woodgold wrote:
> Tim Tyler (tim@xxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
> > So - is "r" higher than convention would dictate; and if so - how
> > much higher?
>
> It's simply a matter of definition. If you're interested in
> studying how people treat their cousins,

Your missing Tim's point. Tim's interested in understanding the
selective origins of altruism and related social behaviors. There are
many people that believe (wrongly IMO) that Darwin's understanding of
natural selection is inconsistent with the observations that many
species--including our own--have high degrees of altruism and social
behaviors. Some people, mistakenly IMO, believe that Hamilton's rule
solves this mystery. Tim is pointing out that when you actually
examine the evidence closely and honestly it is apparent Hamilton's
rule predicts something very different from what is actually observed.


you might truncate the
> family tree around the great-grandparent level and define
> a relatedness measure that ignores everything further back.
> If you're interested in processes involving certain
> species taking over while others go extinct in the long
> term, you use a more long-term relatedness measure, possibly
> as simplistic as considering all members of one species
> to be fully related (r = 1).
>
> The key is to have clearly stated definitions, understood
> by all involved

I definitely agree with this last statement. If Hamilton had done this
he'd have seen the error of his ways. Hamilton never defined
relatedness. Instead he just through out the assumption that it was
defined by genes IBD = R.

People that believe that Hamilton's rule has causal validity have been
duped by he ambiguity of Hamilton's use of the word relatedness. They
assume falsely that Hamilton's notion of relatedness indicates the
degree the behavior in one lifeform can be predicted in the related
lifeform.



, before stating an argument or even a
> position.
> --
> Cathy Woodgold
> http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
> We are all Iraqis now.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Underestimating r
    ... >> selective origins of altruism and related social behaviors. ... If Hamilton had done this ... >> duped by he ambiguity of Hamilton's use of the word relatedness. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Underestimating r
    ... > selective origins of altruism and related social behaviors. ... If Hamilton had done this ... > duped by he ambiguity of Hamilton's use of the word relatedness. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
Loading