Re: Hamilton's rule

Guy Hoelzer (hoelzer@xxxxxxx) writes:
> Here I think you have contradicted yourself. While you have been convincing
> me of the validity of your argument along the way, that same argument
> persuades me that your last point is false. A largely altruistic population
> would be quite vulnerable to invasion and persistence of low frequencies of
> alleles for selfish behavior. If what you meant was that the largely
> altruistic population is unlikely to be replaced by a regime of selfishness,
> then I would agree.

Invasion does happen under certain circumstances.
However, I think under the conditions (ratio
between b and c, etc.) under which a rare altruistic
gene would tend to spread, then a rare non-altruistic
gene in an altruistic population would tend to
die out at about the same rate.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hamiltons rule
    ... >> altruistic population is unlikely to be replaced by a regime of selfishness, ... > Invasion does happen under certain circumstances. ... > gene would tend to spread, ... selfishness load in a population of altruists. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Hamiltons rule
    ... Catherine Woodgold wrote: ... >> altruistic population is unlikely to be replaced by a regime of selfishness, ... I see no contradiction. ... Groups that can't deal with invasion will be ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)