Re: Removing Lewontin's Fallacy From Hamilton's Rule
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 01:10:28 -0500 (EST)
name_and_address_supplied@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
> > Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> > If you want to view it as a biological process, which continues in the
> > present day, then you need to attach some kind of causality to those
> > correlations, if only so that you can project the observed motions of
> > the past into the future.
> Ah, I was talking about how natural selection doesn't care about
> causation, only correlation.
JE:_
Which was not correct.
> We, on the other hand, might care about
> causation, for instance if we wanted to predict the evolution of a
> particular trait.
JE:-
Darwinian theory predicts a heritable trait can change in an evolutionary
way (a way that is NOT represented as just a random pattern of change within
one population) as this one trait effects the Total Darwinian Fitness of
fertile forms in a dependent and NOT a independent way, i.e. the selection
of one trait remains 100% dependent on every other heritable trait within
each selected fertile form, no exceptions. The formal term for this is: gene
fitness epistasis which remains total per gene per genome. However, within
HR it has been deleted as a deliberate oversimplification to allow cause and
effect to become reversed within HR, i.e. allow "genes to use bodies to
maximally reproduce genes" producing organism altruism via selfish geneism
when _empirically_ the contrary proposition remains verified: "bodies use
genes to maximally reproduce bodies" predicting selfish organisms which
produce altruism at the heuristic gene level of selection. The reproduction
of fertile forms alone represents nature's empirically based maximand and
*NOT* Hamilton's inclusive and just 100% relative and heuristic replication
of genes over _organism_ generations of these genes.
> In addition to the two questions and associated approaches you mention
> above, there is a third question -- and that is: Why is natural
> selection interested in trait X. The answer is: Trait X is correlated
> with fitness. This is the general principle at play in all the models
> that you could construct to answer your question: How will trait X
> change over time under the influence of natural selection?
JE:-
The trait x is NOT just "correlated" to fitness it is _causally determined_
by fitness. The problem is the gene centric Neo Darwinists can only provide
a "hand waving" and irrefutable definition of fitness. OTOH Darwinism can
provide an objective and refutable definition of it: Total Darwinian Fitness
(TDF). Gene centric models simply oversimplify TDF and then proceed to
utterly misuse this oversimplification by allowing the tautology produced by
it to be invalidly employed as a theory of nature in its own right. Again I
request NAS and JM to revisit Felsenstein's propositions from which he
derives HR and ask them to concur of deny that they are just tautological. I
will repeat that doing this test and making their findings public is a test
of their integrity.
NAS should address the problems of HR that I have outlined which are: the
oversimplification (deletion of a constant term) discussed above and two
other critical simplifications (the deletion of two variables):
a) The error of the deletion of n within b/n is required to be
corrected to be able to convert the group centric b into an organism centric
b allowing it to be compared to the organism centric c where subsequently
Hamilton converts both to gene centric using relatedness:
rb/n > r'c/n'
where:
r = relatedness of the actor to the recipients
b = a _group_ centric organism fitness gain (an increase in b organisms
reproduced to n recipients as a whole) to just the one _organism_ centric
actor.
n = number of organism recipients.
r' = 1 the relatedness of the actor to itself.
c = the organism cost to the actor of the b extra organisms reproduced by
n recipients which is group centric and not organism centric. The variable c
represents a cost because it is the number of organisms not reproduced by
the actor, i.e. an organism centric cost to an organism actor. However, the
group centric b fitness remains entirely controlled by the independent
action of Hamilton's group of recipients made up of n Darwinian organisms
with which the actor is dealing in an attempt to inclusively reproduce just
one allele by proxy.
n' = 1 the number of actors which however can be > 1. Note: only when n'>1
does the logic as to why n cannot be deleted become obvious.
In any CORRECT transformation of b and c to just a heuristic gene centric
exercise using r, b must be divided by n just as c must be divided by n' to
be logically self consistent and mathematically correct. The only single
case where Hamilton's allele can increase, even on just a 100% relative
basis, is when the actor inclusively selects itself which is just normal
Darwinian reproduction. Eventually Hamilton's tautology moves full circle
proving it to be just an absurd Empirical proposition as are all tautologies
incorrectly proffered as valid theories of nature in their own right.
2) The deletion of e within r^e
where:
e = gene fitness epistasis where in nature (empirically) ALL genomic genes,
without any exceptions, have a _fitness_ dependency to at least one other
gene on one other chromosome within the same genome.
NAS et al should note that the deletion of n represents a fatal ERROR of
Hamilton et al whereas the deletion of TDF and e respectively, constitute a
deliberate oversimplification and simplification which remain uncorrected
and therefore misused to this day.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by Date: Re: Vent Life? Not the O2 dependent part
- Previous by thread: Re: Removing Lewontin's Fallacy From Hamilton's Rule
- Next by thread: LVB phylogeny program: new Web page and email address
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
