Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: an588@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Catherine Woodgold)
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:34:51 -0400 (EDT)
"Perplexed in Peoria" (jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
> "Catherine Woodgold" <an588@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dj1v9k$1pcv$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Guy Hoelzer (hoelzer@xxxxxxx) writes:
>> > Just for the record, I never argued that "r" is frequency dependent, and
>> > that is not my position.
>>
>> If in the inequality instead of "r" you use "R", the
>> ratio between cost and benefit below which the
>> altruistic choice will increase the rate of the
>> altruistic gene, then in a diploid species R is
>> dependent on how common that gene is in the
>> population. It even gets negative sometimes, I think.
>
> Disagree. The threshold (call it R) for c/b, above which
> altruism is selectively disadvantageous, is independent of
> the frequency of the gene for altruism.
>
> If you believe otherwise, I would like to hear your argument.
I hope to have time to answer more fully later,
but a quick preliminary food-for-thought:
"disadvantageous" to whom? To the organism
as a whole, or to some particular gene which
is more common in the rest of the population
than in that organism?
Note: I'm not talking about the haploid case here.
--
Cathy Woodgold
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
We are all Iraqis now.
.
- References:
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: John Edser
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- Prev by Date: Re: Sergey Gavrilets and the adaptive landscape
- Next by Date: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Previous by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
