Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:19:17 -0500 (EST)
Catherine Woodgold wrote:
> 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.
I see no contradiction. Groups that can't deal with invasion will be
selected against, given the precepts of the scenario that Catherine
described.
>
> 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.
Jim
.
- Prev by Date: Re: evolutionary success of humans
- Next by Date: Call for paper in Nanotechnology journal
- Previous by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
