Re: The uncorrected simplifications/oversimplifications of


name_and_address_supplied@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
> > name_and_address_supplied@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
>
> Jim, I ordinarily wouldn't take your bait. There is simply no way of
> reasoning with you. Plus, there is no danger of anyone taking seriously
> your snipes at me. You lost any credibility we might have once
> generously given to you when you embarked on the absurd "probabilities
> are not dimensionless numbers" rant.
>
> However, this may be a good way of clarifying the historical
> development of social evolution theory, for any interested onlookers
> who may be following this. So here goes.
>
> > > HR is general enough to cover any social action. And it tells us the
> > > direction of selection. We use this, along with Hamilton's hypothesis,
> > > to see what we predict organisms to be doing. We empirically test to
> > > see if this is the case.
> >
> > I think your comments here indicate that your thinking is so vague
> > that you don't really know why you think what you think.
>
> In what way are my comments vague? Fair enough if you think they are
> wrong, but I am intrigued to hear why they are supposed to be vague. I
> have suggested that:
>
> (1) Hamilton used a mathematical identity (a truism) supplied by Price
> to write a mathematically-true statement about the action of selection
> on a social trait. The result is Hamilton's rule (HR).

This is a nonsense statement. It has no meaning.

>
> (2) Hamilton, being firmly in the adaptationist camp, has further
> hypothesized that selection is the only important influence on social
> evolution, so that we may treat HR as if it is a complete description
> of the direction of evolution for social traits.

What? Plainly you are employing pseudo-logic to come to the conclusion
that HR describes the origins of all social traits.


We may determine the
> endpoints of evolution mathematically using HR, and Hamilton is
> suggesting that this is what we will observe in nature.

He can suggest whatever he wants. But why should we accept it?

>
> I have further suggested that since HR is a mathematically-true
> statement, it does not need to be empirically test.

How convenient. If this isn't circular reasoning I don't know what is.

Also, I have argued
> that Hamilton's prediction that full evolutionary change is adequately
> captured by HR, so that we may use HR to predict actual organism social
> behaviour, is not tautological. It will almost certainly be wrong, in
> the sense that it will not generally be exactly correct. I have
> suggested, however, that the fit between these predictions and
> observations of the natural world is astounding -- in a very real
> quantitative sense, Hamilton's hypothesis (2) has been tested and has
> passed the test with flying colours.

So we should all just take your word for it and ignore the fact that
when its logic is examined nobody can make sense of it.

>
> What is it exactly that you do not agree with here, or that you find
> vague?
>
> > Everybody
> > agrees that lifeforms maximize their inclusive fitness.
>
> What? As outlined above, this should not generally be exactly correct.

?

>
> > HR was
> > proposed as a way of explaining the underlying mechanics of this
> > observation.
>
> This is incorrect. Inclusive fitness was derived from HR. HR came
> first, was derived from a gene's-eye-view approach, and afterwards
> Hamilton used HR to generate an individual maximand, which he termed
> "inclusive fitness".

More meaningless nonsense.

>
> > As John indicates, it's plainly tautological to suggest
> > that the observation that lifeforms maximize their inclusive fitness
> > verifies HR.
>
> And it is plain from your comment that you have not read what I have
> written. HR is a mathematically true statement. It does not need to be
> verified.

Pseudo-logic.

>
> > <snip>
> >
> > > The fig wasps might be doing something different from the prediciton.
> > > There is no reason why they should not, except that HR suggests that
> > > selection will favour them to obey the prediction. I'm failing to see
> > > why this doesn't count as a valid test of kin selection theory.
> >
> > > Please explain why, if HR is wrong, the fig wasps appear to have been
> > > taken in by it. And not just the fig wasps. HR allows exceptionally
> > > well-verified predictions of nature. As I have repeatedly said, isn't
> > > this the ultimate test of theory?
> >
> > No. It's not. The Ptolemaic theory of celestial motion does
> > a good job of predicting the location of many planets and
> > stars. This fact doesn't erase the fact that its underlying
> > assumptions have been disproven.
>
> A bad analogy.

It's a perfect analogy. You confirmed it above.

> We also have the Copernican hypothesis of celestial
> motion, that does *better*. It explains more of the observations than
> the Ptolemaic hypothesis. What other, better hypothesis of social
> evolution do you have in mind as a replacement?

Group selection.

> Although, above, you
> seem to be of the opinion that organisms do indeed maximize their
> inclusive fitness. So I don't know what you are trying to say here. It
> is you who is being vague, Jim.
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > > As I've said, we have the fig wasps on our side. Our rule is not wrong.
> > > It is empirically supported.
> >
> > Empirically supported? Does the fact that 15th century explorers
> > employed ptolemaic celestial motion to navigate the seas serve as
> > empirical support for it's underlying assumptions? (Please make a
> > special effort to not evade this question.)
>
> Many powerful, predictive and successful theories are based on
> assumptions that are not properly valid. For example, many analytical
> techniques in evolutionary theory assume vanishing genetic variation,
> to simplify the mathematics. Clearly this is invalid, in the sense that
> there is often quite a bit of genetic variation in natural populations.
> Yet the predictions from this theory are typically very accurate. Here,
> although the assumptions are not held exactly, they are justified on
> the basis that the break from these assumptions does not generally
> matter.
>
> To bring this back to social evolution, a demonstration that allele
> frequency change in natural population is not deterministic, i.e. that
> it has a stochastic element, will not bring down the foundations of
> social evolution theory, even if the latter is based on the assumption
> that allele frequency change is deterministic.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... random mutation and I assume natural selection. ... think (using empirical evidence to support your position) each of them ... I, in fact, did define evolution: ... Even Paley recognized variation within a species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Evolutionary Theory
    ... controlled random mutations and contingent selection ... Evolution and Natural Selection. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Trying to salvage something from this Re: The Theory of Evolution
    ... examples of mutation and selection. ... Defending the theory of evolution from a ... mathematics or the interpretation of data. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm
    ... couldn't catch food or would have been killed by other animals. ... No. Natural selection can explain how ... "Slugs, when attacked, can contract their body, making themselves harder and more compact and thus more difficult for many animals to get a hold. ... direction that evolution will probably take. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Revised Tautology FAQ - Thread-5
    ... He has foisted evolution ... point has nothing to do with whether natural selection is a tautology. ... misconstrued as the fittest surviving? ...
    (talk.origins)