The status of Infertile forms ( was: What is the evolutionary explanation of consciousness?)



My apologies for this late response.

Guy A Hoelzer hoelzer@xxxxxxx wrote:-

JE:-
I think a mule represents a classic example as to why any infertile form
must remain an integrated part of a fertile form. The genes in a mule
can go
nowhere because mules cannot breed only allowing a mule to have a zero
fitness. The best any mule can do is to assist the genes it has
inherited
from its fertile parents to enter the next organism generation. This
means
assisting its own parents to breed. If these parents mostly breed more
mules
then the whole thing starts to resemble a eusocial reproductive
strategy.

That would be true if the infertile offspring were part of the parents'
reproductive strategy.

JE:-
But this remains the case on just logical grounds (see below).

My hesitation in agreement was based on examples
like mules, where the offspring have nothing to do with the parents'
reproductive strategies beyond possibly being a failed attempt to create a
reproductive offspring. Sometimes infertile offspring do not remain an
integrated part of a fertile form, which is why I did not fully agree with
your statement that they "must" remain so.

JE:-
The "must" I used is only based on logic: genes within an infertile form can
only possess a zero fitness relative to an infertile body or any meta level
above this except for a fertile body no matter how well adapted they allow a
meta infertile form to become and irrespective of how much longer these
genes increase the lifespan of an infertile form.


ii) not just the sum of the fitness of each individual which
comprises any one group.

This mechanism would be included in my meaning.

JE:-
Why did you exclude selection OF the group in which each group fitness
is
just the sum of the fitness of each fertile individual which comprises
any
one group?

Because under this description there is no evidence that the group
actually
exists as a possible unit of selection.

JE:-
But I have been posting the same argument to sbe for nearly 5 years now.
Previously you rejected it (I think the closest was about 3 months ago).

I have always argued that fitnesses at different levels of selection must
be
independent, so I'm sure that I never posted anything consistent with the
claim that group selection can occur when group fitness was merely the sum
of its individual fitnesses. I have consistently argued against this idea
over the years on sbe and I challenge you to find anything I have posted
contrary to this.

Example:
To: Sci.bio.evolution moderation account <sbe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Jan 29 2006:

------------------------------ repost ---------------------------------

Guy Hoelzer hoelzer@xxxxxxx wrote Jan 29 2006

I agree that every level of selection, such as the individual
organisms, must
have a phenotype (including the trait of fitness) that is a non-
additive
result of single gene influences.

JE:-
Do you agree that "the trait of fitness" as measured at the gene level
is
always dependent on another level and is therefore not an independent
fitness?

No. I have tried to convey to you that I do not see
dependence/independence
as a black and white issue.


JE:-
You did _convey_ this. The problem was is it made no sense to me. The reason
why is this: If you allow "dependence/independence" to be complimentary and
not contradictory (it cannot be both) it becomes impossible to distinguish
mono-centricity from poly-centricity.

snip<

IMHO, no two things or processes in the
universe are 100% absolutely independent.

------------------------------------ end repost ----------------------------

JE:-
Your final comment in the above repost: "no two things or processes in the
universe are 100% absolutely independent" is a get out of jail free card. It
allows you to only subjectively dictate what differentiates group fitness
interdependence from group fitness dependence without having to be
empirically accountable.


The only possible reason why "under this description there is no
evidence that
the group actually exists as a possible unit of selection" is because
additive
fitness associations can only produce _fitness independent_
associations.
Associations between what? You haven't said what you are referring to.

JE:-
Just, any group of biological entities, e.g. any group of organisms, any
group of genes, any group of cells....

I
am talking about independence of fitness at different levels of
organization. For example, individuals in a group could have high
fitnesses, but the group could have low fitness, and vice versa.

JE:-
This remains empirically possible if the fitness of a group is not just the
simple sum of the fitness of each part. If most individuals in such a group
have a higher fitness then any additive group must also have a higher
fitness. However, if any group fitness remains NON additive then it can
become geared to become either much higher or much lower than the mean
individual fitness. The cost: a loss of fitness independence.


This means that selection between additive in fitness parts must be
occurring
before selection between groups possibly can.

This strikes me as rubbish, but then I may not understand your argument.

JE:-
My hypothesis which I have often repeated here remains precise and
empirically refutable, i.e. remains rigorous. I define any additive in
fitness group to consist entirely of independent in fitness wholes which
_intersect_ their fitnesses allowing the largest fitness to reduce all the
other fitnesses to intersecting (reversible) subsets of itself. This
represents a testable logic of natural selection. This is the reason why I
state that selection between additive in fitness parts (which actually
constitute wholes) must be occurring before selection between groups of them
can. The facts of this matter is that any additive in fitness parts of a
population are not fitness dependent parts of one selectee but empirically
fitness independent wholes. Reversing this proposition is empirically
unsustainable.

As I think about levels of selection, it is clearly possible to have
selection at the group level without any selection occurring at the
individual level.

JE:-
Only when supposed as competition between non additive in fitness wholes
which empirically represent an individual. When employing selection via
competing additive in fitness wholes within an additive meta population,
selection has already operated on these "parts" (competing Darwinian
individuals) before it could possibly occur between populations of them. The
first additive in fitness level is just the fertile organism level. It
dominates every other level simply because of this fact. If you can provide
a lower additive in fitness level which is empirically based then please
provide one.

If selection remains equal for each Darwinian selectee then it has operated
before selection at the additive group level has, e.g. extinguishing one
additive in fitness population in favor of another group. This is routinely
but incorrectly employed to represent an act of group selection.


Selection at different levels are independent processes
that need not influence one another, although they may often influence one
another in nature.

JE:-
But this "influence" can employ two _contradictory_ pathways:

1) A non mutualised influence directed from above (using nested sets of
fitness): Here an enforced fitness loss at a lower nested set level provides
a fitness gain for the largest fitness set it remains within. A schematic
example: if A is entirely nested within B (not the reverse) then A CAN be
selected to sacrifice fitness for B simply because selection only occurs as
a contest between B's, i.e. competition remains entirely at the B level of
selection. Note: the opposing nested set fitness configuration provides an
empirically based refutation.


2) A mutualised exchange influence not imposed from above (using intersected
sets of fitness): Fitnesses reversibly intersects within an additive in
fitness proposition allowing those receiving a bad fitness deal to simply
leave and find a better one. A schematic example: If A only reversibly
intersects with B then selection between A and B operates before selection
between additive in fitness populations of either do. Selection between
groups constituting additive in fitness selectees can produce a grouped
selective force but not a grouped selectee. These groups can only act as one
(of many) selective forces on Darwinian individuals e.g. the Baldwin effect.
Note that V. C. Wynne-Edwards confirmed this in his final book on this
subject which occupied most of his life (this last book remains ignored).
Wynne-Edwards recanted only allowing group selection via groups but not on
groups (which of course is not group selection). These groups can act as a
selective force but not as a selectee.

I predict that an additive fitness association can never allow the selection
of a fitness loss in order to sustain a fitness gain at a meta additive
level. A non additive set nesting association represents a different kettle
of fish because any inner nested set remains stuck within the largest one so
it can only be selected via the fitness of the larger set. OTOH additive
fitness associations remain entirely reversible allowing those suffering a
reduced fitness to move somewhere else.

To which of the above do you refer?


This in turn means group selection must always remain subject to
individual
selection disallowing the evolution of organism fitness altruism in
nature via
selection between additive in fitness groups.

JE:-
The above is deductive from the inductive inference that additive groups of
fitness cannot constitute one selectee, just the one selector (the
contradictory opposite proposition).

It suggests that the existence of the group as a potential target of
selection is a figment of our imagination.

JE:-
I argue that group selection between additive in fitness groups remains
100%
subject to individual selection, i.e. it can act as an amplifier for
Darwinian selection acting at the fertile organism level. The common
argument that it can contest and win against the Darwinian fertile
organism
level was and remains _entirely_ false.

It seems to me that what you are talking about has nothing to do with
multilevel selection. You are making a straw man by defining groups as
the
sort of thing that selection does not grab hold of, then pointing out that
selection doesn't grab hold of them.

JE:-
No. I stated clearly and unambiguously that an additive in fitness group
cannot possibly represent a single selectee but it can constitute one (of
many) selectors. On the other hand a non additive in fitness group can and
does constitute one selectee, e.g. one group of somatic cells empirically
represents a single organism fitness. The empirical test: provide a
verification of just one organism which is the simple sum of the fitness of
any of its parts. None exist. Not a single additive somatic gene or somatic
cell fitness can be found. No additive organ fitness exists. No body part
fitness can be just added to another to provide an empirically based
additive fitness. The very first additive in fitness level is the organism
level which must become fertile to reproduce itself. This is why the
organism induction remains essential to the science of biology. I cannot see
how it is possible to make this critical but basic distinction any clearer.


You should try considering the sort
of
groups that selection can get traction with, such as groups with fitnesses
that are either non-linear functions of their individual's fitnesses or
groups with fitnesses that are not functions of their individual's
fitnesses
at all.

JE:-
Please provide an example. In this case each group can only constitute a
single selectee and not a group of selectee's.

I prefer to think of group selection acting when there is absolutely no
correlation between individual fitnesses and group fitnesses.

JE:-
If the fitness of the group is NOT just the simple sum of the fitness of
the
parts then that group must constitute one Darwinian selectee.

Then maybe you are a multilevel selectionist after all.

JE:-
No, simply because selection at the very _first additive and independent
fitness level_ determines the final fitness. All so called higher
multi-levels of fitness that remain additive evolve to become fitness
mutualistic to just this first additive in fitness level. Nested higher
levels of fitness remain lethally contradictory forcing a resolution as to
who is the boss: e.g. the transformation of fitness dependent to fitness
independent cancer cells. These newly fitness independent cells have no
other choice but to contest the fitness of the body they are within. Healthy
cells constitute a dependent nested (not independent intersected) fitness.
Once these cells transform to have an independent fitness a selectee a war
inevitably results which destroys both the cancer and the body.

IOW what we are looking at here is one organism and any infertile
offspring as
just a single unit of selection. Quite clearly the fitness of each cell
or
each organ does not simply add up to provide the fitness of one organism
no
matter how you define fitness. I might add neither does the fitness of
the
genomic genes. Therefore it is not possible to argue that any of these
parts
have an independent fitness.

We are having a semantic problem here. If the fitnesses of higher units
was
constrained to be merely the sum (or average) of the fitnesses of their
components, then I would describe the fitnesses of these different levels
in
the hierarchy as dependent.

JE:-
But the semantics I use remain empirically refutable. How can it be claimed
to be empirically true that "the sum (or average) of the fitnesses of their
components"... "would describe the fitnesses of these different levels
in the hierarchy as dependent" when empirically these can be proven to
remain fitness interdependent (just reversible intersecting sets fitness)
and therefore fitness _independent_?

If the fitnesses at different levels were not
so constrained, I would call them independent. You seem to be using
"dependence" in the opposite way.

JE:-
My argument is that you have these critical propositions in reverse where my
claim can be empirically substantiated.

Put another way, any such argument constitutes an oversimplification of
empirical reality which must be corrected before it can be validly
applied.

In my opinion fitnesses at nested levels of organization are often
intertwined and only semi-independent, but it is important to recognize
that
being semi-independent is not the same as being entirely dependent.
It is
autonomy by degree.

JE:-
Fitness "autonomy by degree" means nothing to evolutionary theory if you
cannot/refuse to define what does and what does not constitute an autonomous
fitness. My definition: any additive fitness (no matter how you define
fitness) represents an autonomous fitness. Therefore, any non autonomous
fitness is any non additive fitness which can only be represented as a
nested fitness.

Please supply your definitions.



JE:-
I have been attempting to discuss nested sets of fitness for over two
years
now without a single response. Do you discriminate between intersecting
sets
and nested sets?

We have been through this, and I have answered before.

JE:-
Not to my knowledge. Please provide a reference for any discussion within
sbe (or anywhere!) which addresses this difference. To my knowledge the
question of the critical difference between nested and intersected sets of
fitness remains _chronically evaded_ within evolutionary theory.

A simple "yes" or "no" is all that was required of you (which is shorter and
easier than what you wrote). No good reason exists that I can ascertain as
to why you refused to provide either.

snip<

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mathematics Is Not a Science
    ... which is the ONLY trait that selection can act on ... > with perfectly additive effects on fitness. ... has ever been documented within nature. ... experiment I proposed to provide a refutation of Darwin's ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection
    ... may need is a better definition of complexity. ... gene finds itself (via the deletion of gene fitness epistasis within ... falsifiable unit of selection. ... The simple example I use to illustrate a nested set and its fitness ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Wynne-Edwards ( was Homosexuality)
    ... > organisms, must ... >> always dependent on another level and is therefore not an independent ... each part type can represent a valid level of selection. ... Darwinian mono-centric theory describes each fitness independent organism as ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Ernst Mayr: Where Are We (1976)
    ... >> to determine when organism fitness altruism could evolve in nature, ... >> gene fitness been developed allowing a minimally VALID simplified ... selection exist is required to produce a valid theory of same. ... Understanding how gene fitness epistasis can be coded and inherited ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • RE: Fw: Edward O. Wilsons "bombshell" on the reality of group
    ... selection -- and the same seems to hold true for humans. ... inclusive fitness concept has always been organism group centric (group ... revolutionary poly-centric argument for the evolution of "altruism" ... argument is argued to be gene centric. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
Quantcast