Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:31:56 -0500 (EST)
"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
> > JE:-
> > There is nothing a tautology CANNOT do when it is misused all-on-its-own
> > as
> > a theory of nature. HR has been misused this way for nearly 50 years.
> "Nearly 50 years"????
> Halleluia! ;-)
> Though we are now talking about the 1970 tautology version of the rule.
> And it is only 35 years old.
JE:-
Incorrect. The rationale for altruism evolving because of relatedness has
never included even just one constant term so it has always been a misused
tautology since HPR (1950's Haldane's Pub Rule).
> > Why don't you attempt to make a list of the relevant biological
> > events that are entirely prohibited by the rule?
> The following biological events are entirely prohibited by the (1970)
> rule:
> 1. An decrease in the frequency of the trait if rb>c
> 2. An increase in the frequency of the trait if rb<c
> 3. Any change in the frequency of the trait if rb=c
JE:-
Incorrect. The four WHY _conditional_ propositions of altruism, selfishness,
mutualism and spite remain the causative hypothesis of Hamilton's rationale
and not the HOW propositions of rb>c, rb=c and rb<c. It can easily be
proven that the rule cannot tell conditional altruism (positive c, positive
b) from conditional selfishness (negative c, negative b) where both allow
Hamilton's allele to spread on just a relative basis. The reason the rule
cannot tell them apart is because no constant term exists within HR. Note
also that the _absolute_ frequency of a trait CAN increase or decrease when
rb = c so the rule has always failed to address absolute increases and
decreases. These were and remain absolutely required to provide any
meaningful biological context (frame of reference). Without this frame only
two UNCONDITIONAL and therefore valid WHY propositions actually exist in HR:
1) Unconditional actor selfishness: ANY negative c.
2) Unconditional actor altruism: ANY positive c.
Because rb>c remains mathematically equal to -rb<-c HR cannot tell
unconditional actor selfishness from unconditional actor altruism where
either relatively increase the freq. of Hamilton's allele against the
wildtype allele. Thus the rule remains at best, just an
unrecognized-because-of-incompetence useless way for anybody to argue WHY
Hamilton's altruistic gene spreads in nature or at worst, a deliberate
misrepresentation of evolutionary theory within the biological sciences.
> The (1970) rule is a tautology. If a trait just happens to be drifting
> to a higher frequency, this will show up in the regression values of
> r, b, and c in such a way that it will be true that rb>c. If, in the
> next generation, the trait drifts back to a lower frequency, then in
> the next generation, with newly calculated values of r, b, and c, it
> will be true that rb<c.
> The (1970) rule says nothing about cause and effect, and hence nothing
> about whether a phenomenon is real or just a temporary aberation.
JE:-
Since it's inception as HPR in the 1950's the rationale as why an altruistic
gene spreads was and remains an uncorrected simplification (deletion of the
variables e and p) but much more critically, a non corrected
oversimplification (deletion of the only constant that exists in HR, K=
Total Darwinian Fitness of the actor) proving HR to have been misused.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Paper: Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members
- Next by Date: Re: Hamilton's Rule: light at the end of a LONG tunnel?
- Previous by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by thread: Most influential person in evolutionary biology
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
