Re: Biology of genocide
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 13:42:47 -0500 (EST)
drosen0000@xxxxxxxxx wrote:-
The historical record also undercuts kin selection theories, he said,
because people who participate in massacres attack their own. Large
numbers of close relatives and neighbors were denounced to the Gestapo
between 1933 and 1945, for example, and Nigerian dissident Wole Soyinka
has given the account of a leading Hutu citizen in a Rwandan town who
set an example for other Hutus by slaughtering first his Tutsi wife and
then lopping off the heads of his three sons. The Cultural Revolution
in China, Pol Pot's purge of urban Cambodians and Stalin's purges in
the Soviet Union were also massacres in which both sides came from the
same ethnic group, Zajonc said.
I am not a genetic determinist (not completely). However, I
don't think that your examples logically contradict kin selection.
Kinship is defined by the number of genes shared by organisms, not
their historical relationship to each other.
JE:-
You must also state that kin selection assumes (as just an UNCORRECTED
OVERSIMPLIFICATION) that each and every gene remains INDEPENDENTLY and NOT
DEPENDENTLY selected. IOW each gene is assumed to be inclusively selected to
independently increase the relative frequency of its own gene type in one
population no-matter-what. This means that Hamilton is actually proposing is
that each gene is only interested in increasing the relative number of genes
that are like itself within one population when compared to genes that are
different no matter what these genes code for. This is supposed to apply no
matter if Hamilton's inclusive relative gain DECREASES the TOTAL number of
inclusively selected gene types within one population. IOW as long as JUST
ONE gene type increases in numbers compared to a different gene type within
one population, even if the total number of BOTH becomes drastically reduced
at every inclusive selective act, nature is supposed to NATURALLY SELECT for
such an event. It remains self evident that increasing a genes relative
fitness at the expense of its total fitness (the total number of this type
of gene within one population decreases) remains the surest route to
extinction. Hamilton's logic is the same as a snake eating its own tail: a
relative gain for an absolute loss. It cannot be done RATIONALLY even if
Hamilton's tautology remains consistently misused to say that it can.
The EMPIRICAL facts contradict W.D. Hamilton's uncorrected oversimplified
proposal of gene fitness independence because inclusive fitness always was
a nested subset within Darwinian fertile organism fitness (IOW it does not
just intersect with it as Hamilton assumed within his model). Hamilton's
Rule was supposed to allow the evolution of organism fitness altruism (OFA)
without group selection. Darwinism entirely prohibits OFA as a refutation
because the Darwinian proposition of gene fitness remains nested within one
organism fitness. In this case gaining at just a nested set level via a
reduction of the fitness at the most outer nested set level (which is what
OFA actually means within Darwinism) reduces and cannot increase the fitness
of that nested set. This can be verified by supposed meiotic drive "selfish"
genes. As they drive themselves more and more into a population they become
more and more naturally selected against. By dissolving away Darwinian set
nesting as a never corrected oversimplification, Hamilton et al were able to
allow for the evolution of OFA (on just a 100% relative basis) via the use
of a tautological mathematical model (rb>c) which you should note does not
contains a single constant term. IOW it remains relative to just nothing
stated by anybody.
Darwinian natural selection selects for or against any inclusive fitness in
exactly the same way that it selects for or against any sexual selective
fitness. At-all-times any sexual or inclusive fitness must go with and not
against, Darwinian natural selection. No contradiction of natural selection
by sexual selection or anything else can be naturally selected for. There
are no exceptions to the rule that ANY other supposed type of fitness
remains nested within a Darwinian naturally selective fitness, including
Hamilton's inclusive fitness. Hamilton et al simply dissolved away this
critical nested set assumption and replaced it with just a tautological set
intersection.
A fitness set supposed to just intersect with another always remains fitness
_independent_ but if they are nested they produce a ONE WAY _dependent_
fitness (two ways always exist to nest two sets where one must contradict
the other). A nested set of fitness becomes fitness dependent on the set it
remains nested within, no exceptions. All the nested fitness sets become
dependent on just the largest (outer) set, again no exceptions. In the
empirically based science of biology genes remain EMPIRICALL FITNESS nested
within single Darwinian fertile organism fitnesses and not the reverse. They
are never just intersected (which allows BOTH making the proposition
irrefutable).
For example, the Hutu citizen obviously thought of himself as very
distantly related to his Tutsi wife, compared to the relationship that
he had to other Hutu townspeople. Suppose his Tutsi wife had a genome
that differed from him by 100 genes, and the average Hutu had a genome
that varied from his by 20 genes. Then, he would be in principle be
predisposed to aid his Hutu neighbors at the expense of his wife, which
under the stressful conditions caused by the conflict would mean
killing her.
JE:-
Randomly aiding a Hutu neighbor (Hamilton requires largess to be handed over
randomly)) who has 20 genes different on average (on strictly a gene-by-gene
fitness independent basis) only because one Tutsi wife differs 5 times more
(has 100 genes that are different on average) allows I Hutu stranger to be
worth 5 Tutsi wives (on just a balance of gene probabilities). What you
have failed to consider is how many children each of these wives could have
reproduced if you had not of killed any of them. IOW the relatedness to you
of each of the children born to each Tutsi wife remains the inclusive
fitness relatedness component and not the relatedness of you to any adult,
including a Hutu adult. Note that this error remains common within the
literature biasing Hamilton's logic 50% in favor of inclusive fitness. The
maximum that relatedness can be is 0.25 and not 0.5 because it must be
measured against the offspring and not the assisted parent of the offspring.
If you murder all of your wives before any of them have reproduced at all
you only end up killing off your own _interdependent_ Darwinian fitness.
Murdering females always allows an UNACCOUNTED FOR inclusive fitness LOSS
because you can never know how many children she may have reproduced by you
if you had not killed her. Since each child only has half of your genes,
each of your wives offspring can only genetically represent 1/2 of you and
1/2 of her (again on just a hopeless gene by gene additive basis in which
all genetic epistasis remains deleted). This means that 50% of her 100
different genes can be inherited as a probability by each of the children.
IOW the number of genes different to you in each of her offspring now
becomes reduced to 50. Murdering 2.5 of your own children (not killing five
of your wives) now becomes the inclusive fitness equivalent to randomly
helping one Hutu neighbor.
You have no surety that your randomly allocated largess will actually
translate into more Hutu reproducing themselves. Indeed, because it is just
randomly allocated you must end up giving some of it to Tutsi. If you
disallow Hamilton's random allocation of largess because you can recognize
say two genes that are similar then Hamilton's independent probabilities
must become multiplied. This makes inclusive fitness unworkable because any
relatedness multiplied quickly becomes a non relatedness. When compared to
simply reproducing yourself, handing over largess on either a random or a
non random basis remains an idiotic alternative. The only surety that you
have is that you must murder at least 2.5 of your own children reducing our
own total Darwinian fitness (TDF) just to provide a _probability_ of Hutu
reproducing one child more. Unless the randomly donated largess you provide
allows at least 1 more Hutu child to be born that would not have been, you
have DEFINITELY wasted 2.5 of your own children's lives. IOW while the NON
inclusive c side of Hamilton's rule (rb>c) remains risk free the inclusive
rb side has always been riddled with an UNCOSTED risk. IOW they were never
EMPIRICALLY EQIVALENT fitnesses as Hamilton et al falsely assume that they
are.
snip<
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Biology of genocide
- From: drosen0000
- Re: Biology of genocide
- Prev by Date: Re: What makes one allele dominant and another recessive?
- Next by Date: Re: What makes one allele dominant and another recessive?
- Previous by thread: Re: Biology of genocide
- Next by thread: Re: Biology of genocide
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
