Re: Group selected altruism - (was: Hamilton's rule)
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:50:47 -0500 (EST)
"JoeSP" olegp@xxxxxxxxx wrote:-
> > JE:-
> > These groups all remain fitness _interdependent_. This means they
> provide
> > a
> > mutual but not necessarily equal fitness gain per group member. The
> > essential characteristic is that the fitness of any one group is the
> > simple
> > sum of the fitness of each group member. It is these groups that provide
> > one
> > of the most effective adaptations within evolutionary theory:
> > _independent_
> > mutualism which must not be confused with Hamilton's heuristic dependent
> > mutualism. Because of the consistent misuse of HR over about 50 years
> > within
> > which independent levels of fitness are not maintained or have been
> > incorrectly converted, independent mutualism has become utterly confused
> > with dependent altruism and dependent selfishness neither of which exist
> > within nature.
> >> The second essential feature of a group, in these models, is that the
> >> fate of the individuals in the group is in some sense tied up with the
> >> fate of the group - at least for the portion of the individual's
> lifetime
> >> that it spends in the group. Group selection leads to bus passengers
> >> who do not distract the bus driver.
> > JE:-
> > Yes, but this relationship is classically INTERDEPENDENT, i.e. it relies
> > entirely on increasing the INDEPENDENT fitness of each group member but
> > not
> > necessarily equally. Because of the consistent misuse of HR this simple
> > fact
> > has become submerged within a mathematics based on gene centric
> population
> > genetics which has consistently failed to conserve levels of selection
> > and/
> > or has singularly failed to correctly convert one level into another.
> Why have you ignored all the simplest and most obvious evidence that group
> selection of altruistic traits works?
JE:-
Because none exists. All the supposed "simplest and most obvious evidence
that group selection of altruistic traits works" is equally but oppositely
explained by _unconditional_ mutualism operating at the just the Darwinian
fertile form level of selection where NO altruism is operating. Please note
that unconditional mutualism is NOT the same concept as conditional
mutualism concept employed by Hamilton et al. Also note that HR is just a
biologically invalid tautological degeneration of the classical group
selective argument wherein the Darwinian level of the actor is not
conserved. To conserve it b/n where n = the number of recipients correcting
HR to rb/n> c. This reduces the actor to just one viable option: inclusively
select yourself exposing the rule to be just a circular argument because
inclusively selecting yourself is just normal reproduction. If you have any
problems with any of these concepts I am happy to expand on any of them if
requested.
If you consider yourself to be a person of integrity then to prove to
yourself that HR was derived from just tautological premises so that it and
all of its biological applications also remain tautological including
"Hamilton's hypothesis", then please review Prof. Felsenstein's derivation
of HR that he posted to sbe and make available your finding for other sbe
readers. If you have a grain of skepticism within you then please review the
last posting to "The uncorrected simplifications / oversimplifications of.."
where I demonstrate the lack of self consistency proven by NAS's double
reply posting on HR. Also please review Felsenstein's worthless denigration
of Jim McGinn where McGinn CORRECTLY stated that no dimensionless numbers
exist within the sciences. EK provided a large list of these but failed to
include the simple fact that all of them are multiplied by dimensioned
numbers in the sciences where the multiple is _dimensioned_ e.g. within HR,
while r is just a dimensionless number because it is only a probability the
multiple rb is not and it is only the multiple that matters.
> Is it because you imagine the
> greatest chance of success in defeating the argument on a technicality?
> Science doesn't work that way, much to the credit of our civilization.
JE:
Criticizing a senior and honored Professor of evolutionary theory with over
40 years of experience who still insists that a valid theory of nature can
be derived from just tautological premises and then be misapplied as just an
irrefutable theory of nature as HR remains, is NOT A CRITICISIM BASED ON
JUST A TECHNICALITY. Felsenstein et al must carefully explain to sbe readers
how such a basic error was ever allowed to persist for nearly 50 years.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Article: On Noise in Gene Expression
- Next by Date: Re: Group selected altruism - (was: Hamilton's rule)
- Previous by thread: Re: Group selected altruism - (was: Hamilton's rule)
- Next by thread: Re: Group selected altruism - (was: Hamilton's rule)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
