Re: Hamilton's Rule is Xeno's Paradox ( was Re: Underestimating
- From: "g" <gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:07:13 -0400 (EDT)
>
> JE:-
> The only empirically based fitness constant that actually exists within
> refutable evolutionary theory is Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF). This is
> defined as: the total number of fertile forms reproduced into one
> population
> by each parent. In Hamilton's Rule this constant term was deleted and was
> not replaced by any other. Therefore it is predicted that the rule can
> only
> maximally provide two contrary unconditional WHY propositions
> (unconditional
> reasons as to why Hamilton's allele appears to spread on just a 100%
> relative basis) but it will not be able to separate them. These are
>
> 1) Unconditional Organism Fitness Altruism (OFA): as measured by an
> entirely
> unconditional positive sign of c.
John, I have by no means learned all the factors involved, much less
thought them through.
My impression of "altruism" is that one cannot put one's finger on any gene
and say, "This is a fitness gene." Or, let me say that someone CAN, but
that raises a lot of questions such as: for what organism, at what stage of
its ontogeny, at what time, under what set of external conditions ...etc.
Perhaps if you will tell me of a particular gene that codes for:
a. A specific self-sacrificial result (including mere increase of energy
expenditure);
b. Works to the competitive advantage of another individual or species; in,
c. Each and every externality setting; at,
d. Each and every stage of individual ontogeny; at,
e. Any and every time...
.... THEN perhaps I will be able to envision the possibility that any gene
can be treated as altruistically
"constant."
Similarly, if you can give me a specific example of an OFS or TDF gene that
is "constant," per this
kind of standard, that will help.
As I have stated elsewhere, the nearest thing to an altruistic gene I can
imagine (so far) is one which produces a given result that meets the
criteria of 'biological altruism' in a certain time, in a certain place, at
a certain ontogenic stage in the life of a single individual, under a
particular set of circumstances.
For every gene that does that, there is at least one gene that produces a
result which is neither advantageous nor disadvantageous, nor which yields
any advantage nor disadvantage to any other individual or species.
This is not to say that worker bees do not sacrifice themselves to protect
their queen. Nor is it to say that a gene (or an allele) may have, or may
not have, been determined by process of elimination, to account for that
behavior (as in, where a worker bee is deprived of it, he'd rather resort to
flight than flight).
While I do not doubt that genes may code for certain forms and functions,
and for hormones that influence behavior in some ways, I do not believe
anyone has taken such a gene from a bee and implanted it in an Englishman,
and thereby converted him into a good candidate for the Royal Guard (or,
indeed, would cause him instead to hang around beehives and throw himself in
the path of an invading wasp.
(:>)
Please understand that I know the limits of my ignorance, and merely am
expressing an impression that there is a tempest in a teapot going on, which
tends to imply that MORE IS KNOWN about genes than is quite known, so
far.
It seems to me that there is too MUCH, by far, remaining unknown and in need
of researching, for any resolution to be attained to the issue of what is a
constant OFA, OFS or TDF gene which might be plugged a formula and relied
upon to predict a specific outcome outside an occasional anecdotal example
that no one yet understands clearly.
But that is as much a confession of ignorance as an expression of skepticism
concerning the actual existence of genes that constantly code, in every
scenario, for a specific behavior.
You are welcome to correct me if there is data to support such an assertion.
Such a gene, would have to be PRESCRIPTIVE, would it not?
Merely to find situations in nature and say, "Here is what happened, and
here is a gene without which it does not happen..." That STILL does not fix
cause and effect, although if ENOUGH samples (examples) could be identified,
that would seem to support such an assertion.
No doubt you have heard the one about the man who often had headaches and
wanted to determine their cause systematically and deductively.
Monday night he drank scotch and soda, and Tuesday morning he awoke with a
headache.
Tuesday night he drank bourbon and soda, and Wednesday morning he awoke with
a headache.
Wednesday night he drank vodka and soda and Thursday morning he awoke with a
headache.
Thursday night he drank gin and soda and Friday morning he awoke with a
headache.
Then, he looked back over his diary and noticed a constant.
"Aha !" He exclaimed, "Its the soda that's doing it?
g
.
- References:
- Re: Hamilton's Rule is Xeno's Paradox ( was Re: Underestimating
- From: John Edser
- Re: Hamilton's Rule is Xeno's Paradox ( was Re: Underestimating
- Prev by Date: Article: Did Life Come from Another World?
- Next by Date: Re: Article: Your DNA Is a Song: Scientists Use Music to Code
- Previous by thread: Re: Hamilton's Rule is Xeno's Paradox ( was Re: Underestimating
- Next by thread: Re: Hamilton's Rule is Xeno's Paradox ( was Re: Underestimating
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
