Re: Hamilton's rule in small population


John Edser wrote:
> "Jim McGinn" jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx wrote:-
>
> > > JE:-
> > > ..group selection can have
> > > nothing to do with any proposed selective competition between individual
> > > organisms and groups of them unless a group selective fitness can be
> > > converted into a Darwinian fitness or vice versa.
>
> > This last sentence is nothing but Edserian nonsense.
>
> JE:-
> Jim's (typical) knee jerk style of retort which I had hoped he had discarded
> was and remains just pointless rhetoric which diminishes his own
> credibility.
>
> > Comparing "apples" to
> > > "oranges" without a factor that can convert one into the other is
> > invalid.
> > > Would Jim please provide this missing conversion factor.
>
> > You need to explain why this is supposedly necessary.
>
> JE:-
> Ok.
>
> In Hamilton's Rule b is the increase to recipients as one whole (group
> centric) and not to each Darwinian separate recipient (organism centric).
> Therefore, comparing b to c remains invalid without being able to convert
> one into the other because you cannot validly compare "apples" to "oranges".
> In HR, to convert the b group centric fitness gain for n recipients into an
> organism centric gain, b must be divided by n (previously I represented the
> number of recipients by the lower case p but Menegay objected suggesting I
> should change it to n which I will proceed to do).
>
> The answer to the question I asked is: divide the group centric fitness by
> the number in the group (n) to convert it into a mean organism fitness or
> multiply the mean organism fitness by the size of the group to convert it
> into a group centric fitness.

Well then it seems you resolved the issue on your own.


>
> > > > > Models were provided in the 1960's that
> > > > > demonstrated that this was not the case.
> > >
> > > > This is not correct. This never took place. There have never been
> > any
> > > > models that demonstrated that group selection is not possible. This
> > is
> > > > nothing more than a scientific version of an urban legend.
> > >
> > > Maynard Smith was instrumental in producing these models. They can be
> > summed
> > > up as: any selfish organism can invade and destroy an altruistic group
> > of
> > > organisms much like a selfish cancer cell can invade and destroy an
> > > organism. Like Karl Popper, Smith was a communist in his wayward youth.
> > The
> > > rude shock that made him grow up was not the pointless death of millions
> > > under Stalin but the rise of Lysenko.
> > >
> > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,1201257,00.html
> > > "The doyen of orthodox neo-Darwinians, he defended his corner vigorously
> > > against revisionists like Steve Gould and the heresy of group
> > selection."
>
> > I won't pretend to understand your point here, assuming you have one.
>
> JE:-
> The above was simply a quote from the website outlining Smith's disregard
> for classical group selection. Nobody is asking you to like it.

I don't dispute the fact that Smith was a card carrying neoDarwinists
and that he, characteristically, rejected group selection. I'm just
saying this opinion was not based on anything remotely resembling
a proof. It has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with
preconcieved notions.

>
>
> > > Only "hard group selection" is actually group centric:
> > > The objects of selection Ernst Mayr:
> > >
> > > http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/6/2091#B6
> > >
> > > "Group Selection.
> > > There has been a long and bitter controversy as to whether groups as
> > > cohesive wholes can serve as targets of selection. The answer is "it
> > > depends." There are different kinds of assemblages of individuals
> > > ("groups"), some of which do and others which do not qualify as targets
> > of
> > > selection. At one time I classified groups on the basis of size and
> > > geographical relationship (16), but this did not turn out to be a
> > productive
> > > approach. However, there is another approach which usually produces
> > > clear-cut results. It is obvious that a group, the selective value of
> > which
> > > is simply the arithmetic mean of the fitness values of the composing
> > > individuals (when in isolation), is not a target of selection. If such a
> > > group is particularly successful, it is due to the superior fitness of
> > the
> > > composing individuals. This idea has often been included in theories of
> > > group selection. However, this false or soft group selection is not
> > group
> > > selection at all. In contrast, if, owing to the interaction of the
> > composing
> > > individuals or owing to a division of labor and other social actions,
> > the
> > > fitness of the group is higher or lower than the arithmetic mean of the
> > > fitness values of the composing individuals, then the group as a whole
> > can
> > > serve as an object of selection. I call this hard group selection.
> > > Interestingly, this was already appreciated by Darwin in a discussion of
> > > groups of primitive humans (4). Such hard group selection, a
> > prerequisite
> > > for the explanation of human ethics, is still controversial."
>
>
> > > > > The reason why Hamilton's Rule was
> > > > > invented was to provide an _organism_ centric (the organism is the
> > thing
> > > > > selected) that COULD allow the evolution of altruism in nature and
> > NOT a
> > > > > group selective argument.
>
> > > > This is true. This is the reason Hamilton was (wrongly) assumed to be
> > > > necessary.
>
> > > JE:-
> > > Ok.
>
> > So you agree that group selection has never been disproven?
>
> JE:-
> No, nobody has provided an empirically based refutation for it

You just contradicted yourself. You answered 'no' but then
went on to confirm my point.

because the
> theory ahs not been untangled from organism centric selection. However prove
> me wrong. Firstly define group selection and then provide an empirically
> based refutation for it.

Now it seems you are just confused. This is why it's always
so frustrating talking with you. You seem to not be able to
follow the logic of the discussion. This is *my* point. I'm the
one saying that group selection has never been disproven.
You are the one that made the false claim that it's invalidity
had, supposedly, been, "demonstrated." So I suggest
reading back up through the thread before you respond.



>
> > > > The irony is that Hamilton's rationale turned out
> > > > > to be group selective all along. Nobody disputes this today. So we
> > are
> > > > all
> > > > > back to where we started in 1960's. The only way out appeared to be
> > > > making
> > > > > Hamilton's Rule gene centric (individual genes suddenly became the
> > thing
> > > > > selected and not the organism or the group). The problem with gene
> > > > > centricity is it remains entirely heuristic (not documented in
> > nature).
> > > > The
> > > > > only empirical candidates (documented observations of nature) are
> > > > meiotic
> > > > > drive genes such as the "t allele" in mice which produces sterile
> > adults
> > > > > providing a no win situation for _both_ organism and the t allele
> > gene.
> > >
> > > > The best solution is the realization that selection can--and, in fact,
> > > > always will, unavoidably--have effects on many different levels at the
> > > > same time.
>
> > > JE:-
> > > Nobody disputes that selection at just the one level" can--and, in fact,
> > > always will, unavoidably--have effects on many different levels". What
> > is
> > > HEAVILY disputed was and has remained for over 5 years of sbe debate:
> > >
> > > "at the same time"
> > >
> > > I have taken this debate to Jim in a recent posting to another thread.
> > So
> > > far he has not replied.
>
> > Your arguments typically have nothing to do with anything but your own
> > semantic confusion.
>
> JE:-
> More utterly pointless rhetoric from Jim which I will point out yet again,
> only diminishes his credibility. Specifically, WHAT arguments and
> specifically, what "semantic confusion" have I demonstrated when using them?
> Unless you are prepared to provide quotes and reasons then your criticism
> only constitutes an unwarranted attack on my integrity which of course, I or
> anybody else must resent.

Well then pay attention when you respond.

>
> > > ---------------------------recent previous posting ---------------------
> > ---
> > >
> > > subject Re: The Cost of Selfishness Is Reduced Mutualism and Not
> > Altruism
> > >
> > > Sent Mon 31/10/2005 1:04 PM
> > >
> > > 1) The difference between dependent and independent Selectees (a
> > selectee is
> > > defined to be the biological entity on which natural selection acts).
> > >
> > > I think we can agree that mutual gains in say x (no matter what x
> > > represents) must provide increases in x for at least two _independent_
> > > actors: A and B. What I mean by "independent" is that we cannot simply
> > pool
> > > all the x's that A and B have together and then only talk about this
> > pooled
> > > amount of x without changing the status of each actor from independent
> > to
> > > dependent. If the fitness of A+B is determined by the number of x's that
> > A
> > > has added to the number of x's that B has allowing A+B to become just
> > the
> > > one, same, group selected selectee (which competes against similar
> > composite
> > > selectees of x to produce a natural selective result) then we end up
> > with
> > > two independent fitness levels: the level of A and B and the level of
> > A+B's
> > > where competition within each level can produce a different selective
> > > result. Quite clearly if A and B remain independent then A and B must
> > > compete against each other to produce a natural selective result. If we
> > > allow both types of competitions then A and B compete as independent
> > > selectees before A+B as in dependent selectees can compete against
> > similar
> > > selectee composites, i.e. these two independent levels are not
> > simultaneous
> > > where the more simple A and B level acts firstly limiting what selection
> > at
> > > the more complex group A+B level can achieve.
> > >
> > > ------------------------- end of repeat recent posting -----------------
> > ----
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Selcetion is not a level (unit) specific process. (Of
> > > course, this also means it's virtually immeasurable.)
> > >
> > > JE:-
> > > This means: Jim's concept of selection as "not a level (unit) specific
> > > process" was and remains purely heuristic and not at all empirically
> > based.
> > > OTOH Darwinian selection which only requires just the one level of
> > selection
> > > is not at all heuristic and remains this day, empirically verifiable and
> > > refutable meeting all the requirements of a valid theory of science.
>
> > But you admit that you have no evidence that dispute it? Right?
>
> JE:-
> If you are referring to your own or anybody else's "not a level (unit)
> specific process" based theory of evolution, then no empirically based
> proposition can exist. Until it does, all irrefutable heuristic claims
> remain invalid propositions of evolutionary science, e.g. Hamilton's Rule. I
> suggest that you attempt to provide a minimal model of what you mean for
> general discussion so that we can begin to work out what you are talking
> about.

If you're suggesting that I'm under some obligation to model group
selection so that it makes sense in the context of your paradigm
then I reject this. It's not my problem if you are too incompetent
to model group selection. If you are also suggesting that your
inablity to model and test group selection means that everybody
else is obligated to assume as you do that group selection is
invalid then I reject this also.

The only reason I responded was because you stated a falshood
that group selection had been demonstrated to be invalid. My
point was only that you could not and would not confirm that
supposition. I think I made my point.

Jim


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Van Valens MAXIMAND
    ... an individual (a unit of selection) increases its fitness as it ... I a1so refute all available arguments for competition being ... Worldwide trophic energy seems to have ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • NS as head to head competition
    ... rating of 3 power units attacks a unit with rating of 4 power ... Suppose a simulation of natural selection were to take a similar ... with the competitors in each competition being randomly selected ... In a competition between an individual with a fitness of 1.01 ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Part 1 (of 3): What are major aspects of evolutionary theory?
    ... No. Selection either kills an organism or fails to kill it. ... individual organism at any particular fitness level. ... Selection doesn't even maintain a line of descent to remain ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Selection timescale
    ... Benefit to an organism, in standard, textbook ... >> fitness measurements over many generations. ... > It factors in parental care. ... > being favoured by selection, and can be expected to be observed. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Nando Explains Natural Selection to You!
    ... >> Thinking About Fitness and Natural Selection" ... > good eyed organism - doesn't reproduce ... beneficial* allele will go ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading