Re: Underestimating 'r'


Catherine Woodgold wrote:
> Tim Tyler (tim@xxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
> >
> > I don't agree that we can simply define r how we like.
>
> I think like a mathematician: any concept can be defined,
> and any convenient symbol can be used for it. When you
> use "r", you can define it how you think it ought to be
> defined. When I use that letter of the alphabet, I'll
> use it how I define it. Sometimes I use it to represent
> the length of a line in a diagram, for example.
>
> What's the definition that you're using, or that you
> think ought to be used?
>
> > Here, "r" appears in a scientific context - Hamilton's rule - which
> > puports to help explain the circumstances under which behaviours
> > involving altruistic acts between individuals can establish themselves
> > in nature.
> >
> > Clearly defining "r" between all members of the same species to be
> > "1" doesn't work in that context, and - to be clear - that's the
> > context I'm talking about.
>
> That's not clear to me at all. When the discussion involves
> long-term stable characteristics within species that cause
> altruistic acts by members of the species that benefit other
> individuals in the same species, and when the results to
> be predicted are the relative success of various species
> and eventual extinction of some species in competition with
> others, then it seems to me that it may well be a very
> useful approximation to say that the relatedness
> of any two members of a species is "1", i.e.
> fully related.

Or very close to 1 if not quite 1.

>
> The quantities to be defined and used
> in an argument will depend on the context
> and can be chosen by the one writing the
> argument.

I agree. And assumptions have to be explained.

Hamilton dropped the ball on this and everybody
has been confused into suspending their disbelief
for some 40 years now.

Jim


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
    ... Your words don't seem to mean the same thing in the same context. ... You have said that neanderthals being within the clade of modern humans implies that modern humans are multiple species. ... any groups of people living today. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
    ... Your words don't seem to mean the same thing in the same context. ... in fact that's not the way the English language works. ... and yet brown bears are a single species. ... differences between neanderthals and modern humans are much greater than ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
    ... Your words don't seem to mean the same thing in the same context. ... Do you understand that the MRCA of three groups is equally the MRCA of ... as "different species" - to include the Neandertal branch. ... Note also that the morphological differences between neanderthals and modern humans are much greater than those between any two modern humans, that modern humans do interbreed whenever they come into sympatry, etc. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
    ... Your words don't seem to mean the same thing in the same context. ... MRCA of all the branches, but it is an earlier or more closely related ... as "different species" - to include the Neandertal branch. ... neanderthals were far outside all ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bacterial Evolution Question
    ... r norman wrote: ... I would think that it is macro- because the species has changed. ... macroevolution and microevolution and a broad gray area connecting ... In a very important sense all evolution, whether viewed in the context ...
    (talk.origins)