Re: The status of Infertile forms ( was: What is the evolutionary


My apologies for my late reply.

Guy A Hoelzer hoelzer@xxxxxxx wrote:-


JE:
As previously indicated my "must" remains a proposition of logic which
confines choices to just two alternatives but does not force either
choice.

This tactic can be useful in some instances and misleading/misguided in
others.


JE:-
Logic is not just a "tactic", it remains an absolute necessity because the
only alternative is gobbledygook. All reasonable propositions remain logical
but not all logical propositions are reasonable. I am happy to expand on
this. Science can only deal in contesting empirically applied reasons
(which must remain logically valid) which are termed "theories".

In any case, it would be helpful for me, and I suspect many
others
on sbe, if you would more clearly distinguish statements of formal
hypotheses from less formal arguments you make about the world.

JE:-
A valid hypothesis of science is required to remain formal, i.e. connect
logically to at least one refutable theory. Unconnected hypothesis have no
scientific validity.

Formal
hypotheses are challenges for refutation, to use your Popperian framework,
and they need not represent the way you think the world actually works.

JE:-
To be able to substantiate such an amazing claim you have to substantiate
that you actually understand the way "the world actually works". My point is
simple enough: the only valid umpire that I know of which can adjudicate
between contesting propositions of how "the world actually works" is the
indifferent umpire of empirically applied reason which alone can refute
falsifiable contesting theories of same. If your theory of "the world
actually works" cannot be falsified then it only remains your personal
belief. You are entitled to it but you cannot force it onto others within
any free society or dictate it as an epistemology of science. If you have a
falsifiable theory of how "the world actually works" then please supply it.


An
hypothesis does not require much justification on your part, but an
argument
is all about justification.

JE:-
Any hypothesis of science is required to be logically connected to an
empirically falsifiable theory where a critical rationalist argument has to
exist just to be able to establish this connection.

If a sterile organism such as a mule cannot be selected to assist a
fertile
form (preferably its own parents) for _whatever reason_, then its own
independent fitness must remain zero.

As an argument about reality then, you seem to agree that "must" is too
strong.

JE:-
You appear not to have understood the argument. This was: the logic of the
status of infertile forms (the title of this thread) remains critically
connected, NOT uncritically disconnected to empirically refutable Darwinian
theory which was and remains entirely contingent on an _objective_
definition of fitness. Given this critical connection, infertile forms can
only have two logical alternatives:

1) Remain with just a zero INDEPENDENT fitness so that they are always
selected against.

2) Incorporate themselves as a fitness DEPENDENT sub part within, and not
anymore contesting to, the fitness of a foreign fertile form so that they
can now be sub selected for, via that fertile forms independent fitness as
just a DEPENDENT, i.e. nested fitness WITHIN it. WHEREVER POSSIBLE, (1) is
selected over (2).

You appear to me to be choosing to evade these TESTABLE alternatives because
they do not conform to your stated (irrefutable) belief about "how the world
works".


There are only two choices: be selected to be reduced to just a fitness
sub
part (here the sterile form assumes a dependent nested fitness within a
fertile form) or remain a fitness nothing as far as nature is concerned.

I'm glad to see that you consider this an option.

JE:-
But I said it above and have always said it! My point: it does not
contradict my proposed selective logic of sterile forms. Logic does not
force either choice it simply _provides_ either choice. It is the empirical
rationale of Darwinism which _forces_ either choice.


I agree that a sterile form such as mule may not be able to be selected
to
assist a fertile form (if it could do so the infertile form obtains for
itself
a dependent nested fitness which is better than just a zero independent
fitness).



Of course, fitness (especially reproduction) may not be a goal for all
individuals, including mules.

JE:-
No. It remains the evolutionary goal even if a mule cannot reproduce. Again
I stress that the rationale forces the choice which the logic provides but
cannot force. It does not matter if the mule knows it or not, it remains
stuck with just these two choices. The job of the evolutionary theory is to
CLEARLY ARTICULATE this and not attempt to evade it. This is why I was
forced to reiterate below:



However, this does not change these two choices: remain independent
with only a zero fitness or be reduced to a dependent part of some other
fertile form. It seems the only possible way nature can select for a
nested
fitness is via hormones requiring an enclosed space, e.g. sterile
eusocials.

JE:-
Why didn't you provide a comment?

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.

This is IMHO badly flawed logic. It seems to be based on the false
assumption that every organism must have or contribute to reproductive
fitness in some way. You conclude that if they aren't going to
reproduce
themselves, they must be play a role in another's (the parents)
fitness.
This is simply not true. I already gave you a concrete example that
demonstrates the falsehood of your logic. Infertile mules rarely play
any
role in the reproductive success of their parents.

JE:-
The fact "infertile mules rarely play any role in the reproductive
success
of their parents: does not exclude the logic that I have detailed.
Please
review the argument presented above. To refute it all that is required
is
the provision of a 3rd alternative for the sterile form. To recap: I
reason
that only two logical alternatives can empirically exist: a dependent
nested
fitness within a fertile form or fitness independency which only
provides a
zero fitness.

Your logic still escapes me, but I acknowledge that this does not mean
your
model lacks logic.

JE:-
Firstly: my proposition that a sterile form can only have a dependent
fitness OR a zero independent fitness is NOT just a model it remains the
very focus of fully testable Darwinian theory.

Secondly: Escapes you? You agreed with the logic (above). Now (suddenly) it
"escapes" you when it becomes _critically connected_ to Darwinian rationale
as an empirical test which appears to go against you.



You could explicitly assume that they do for the sake of a model, but
that
doesn't make it so.

JE:-
Yet again: what I supplied was NOT just a model. You continuously deny
_empirically_ based arguments out of hand.


JE:-
I was not assuming a simplified/oversimplified model. What I carefully
articulated above represented an empirically refutable theory contingent
on
my definition of fitness which can empirically and objectively separate
fitness dependency from fitness independency providing the required
rigor to
underwrite the basic organism concept on which the science of biology
remains based.

I can only give you the benefit of the doubt on this claim.

JE:-
You are evading testing what I am proposing while at the same time proposing
a favored NON testable alternative. If you claim what you are proposing is
empirically testable then please provide these tests.

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 you failed in the past and have failed here to explain WHY this is
the
case. Your agreement that "under this description there is no evidence
that
the group actually exists as a possible unit of selection" without
providing
any explanation as to why this is the case only confirms a belief.
Surely
you realize that since you rejected my argument as to why, the validity
of
your agreement as to why remains contingent on you providing an
alternative
theory with worked examples (which you have not provided).

I have no such obligation, but I also think that I have provided far more
of
what you request in past posts than you suggest.

JE:-
You have removed (by your own choice) the Popperian requirement that your
explanation as to why "under this description there is no evidence that the
group actually exists as a possible unit of selection" be falsifiable
(remains logically connected to an empirically falsifiable theory) but I
have not. For this reason my explanation remains explicable to anybody who
can reason and empirically test whereas yours remains, inexplicable.

Perhaps you are not
reading or pulling together comments I have made in other threads.

JE:-
Ok. I am sure it would help other reader's here (as well as myself) if you
would please list your arguments as basic points, perhaps in priority order,
as to WHY "under this description there is no evidence that the group
actually exists as a possible unit of selection" with at least one
simplified model example (if no empirical example is available).

..snip<
To summarize, higher order entities/processes (e.g., you are an
entity/process; so is the biosphere/natural selection) emerge when top-
down
influences (e.g., entrainment) organize the dynamics at lower levels of
organization.

JE:-
But this does not help me or anybody else empirically apply reason unless
you define what is *NOT* a "higher order entities/processes" within your
explanation. If everything is then you have explained nothing, simply
explained everything away. I have asked this is the past and will continue
to ask for it into the future until you supply an unambiguous answer.

Your description of a group of organisms pointed to ways
that it lacked dynamical boundaries (even fuzzy ones), while failing to
indicated any way in which the dynamics might be bounded.

JE:
No. I stated clearly and unambiguously that an additive fitness (no matter
how you define fitness) can only provide a fitness reversible boundary which
is NOT just a non existent boundary. I have carefully explained that
Darwinian rationale always requires BOTH TYPES OF BOUNDARIES i.e. a fitness
reversible boundary (termed one population) and a fitness irreversible
boundary (termed one fertile organism). Only a rationale that includes BOTH
as contradictory (not just complimentary) allows populations to evolve
_because_ fertile organisms and not populations are selected. Unless you can
provide different reasons which are empirically based as to why "under this
description there is no evidence that the group actually exists as a
possible unit of selection" you are not providing an applied rationale.


I replied by
saying that "under this description there is no evidence that the group
actually exists as a possible unit of selection." I did not take the
bait
of trying to argue about group selection in the absence of real groups
only
to be "proven wrong" in the end because the groups didn't exist.


JE:-
What criteria do you allow which proves a group does NOT to exist? With
regard to my argument: you have yet to demonstrate one example (even as just
a heuristic) of a selectable group within which the fitness of that group's
parts (which in an entirely additive way formed the fitness of that group)
such that the one additive group fitness can actually contest and win
against it's very own parts! I am arguing that this cannot be done whereas
you appear to be arguing that can be. If this understanding of the
difference between our respective positions is correct then it remains
simple unambiguous and empirically testable.


In my opinion, you will not be able to understand multilevel selection
theory until you understand the physics of emergence regarding higher
order
agency.

JE:-
Physics is not biology. What I require is a physical explanation as to how a
reversible fitness boundary can change into a fitness irreversible boundary
or vice versa. Unless you can provide the physics of this then physics has
nothing to add to this discussion.

You may be surprised to know that I do have a multi level theory in
preparation which however, I am not free to discuss here. My argument at the
moment is that any multilevel theory can only be explicable if Darwinian
monocentric theory is:

1) Acknowledged for _exactly_ what it is and _what it can do_.

2) Stands refuted allowing polycentrism to replace it.

Every so called multilevel of selection theory that I have read remains
irrefutable. All of them have failed to identify that refutable Darwinism
(and consequently all gene centric Neo Darwinistic simplified/oversimplified
models of Darwinism made from it) remains CRITICALLY monocentric.

Monocentric Darwinism has to stand empirically refuted BEFORE a polycentric
theory can validly claim to have replaced it. Yourself and today's Post
Modern, gene centric, Neo Darwinistic establishment have taken an
unconscionable short cut: delete Popper's falsifiable requirement which by
necessity retires any former refutable frame of reference into just a non
testable relative frame of reference, i.e. a frame of reference defined by
nobody which means: no frame of reference what-so-ever. This despicable
thought cancer (which evolved from an empirical misuse of mathematics) has
destroyed everything from epistemology to music.


The theory and the worked examples as to why that that I have provided
here
(which you reject out of hand) remain empirically testable: ANY
additive
fitness _proves fitness independence_ thereby refuting fitness
dependence
(and vice versa). Here is my explanation as to why: addition only
employs a
reversible set intersection whereas a NON additive fitness must assume a
non
reversible set nesting which whenever it becomes reversed provides a
required refutation.

I agree with your points about reversibility, however they lead me to
argue
that non-reversibility = independence and reversibility = dependence.

JE:-
Well at least that's a start. I happily agree to disagree that I have these
in reverse. Here are my arguments in more detail. I look forward to your
rebuttal.

I very strictly refer to fitness *ASSOCIATIONS*, i.e. an association between
a minimum of TWO defined total fitnesses expressed as sets of fitness. It
should be self evident that reversibly intersecting a minimum of two defined
fitness sets (which I argue represents two fitness totals for two selectee's
within one population, i.e. a Darwinian population of two total fertile form
fitnesses) remains entirely reversible allowing each fitness set to retain
complete fitness independence from the other. What is occurring here is that
intersecting total sets of fitness allow one to be numerically compared by
default (not by intent) to the other. The smaller intersecting fitness set
simply forms a _reversible subset_ (not an irreversible nested sub set)
within the larger indicating that the larger becomes selected over the
smaller while both remain fitness independent. OTOH two nested fitness sets
wherein one remains nested within the other force the inner nested fitness
set to become reduced to just a fitness dependent state, i.e. remain
entirely dependent on just the outer and largest nested set. This is because
only this outer fitness set can be intersected with another in a fully
reversible way in order to produce one natural selective event.

I
am
still unsure whether our difference here is trivially semantic or
substantive.

JE:-
Well I hope we can sort this out.

snip for brevity<

JE:-
Your consistency only appears to me to be that you prefer sitting on the
fence resolving nothing.

I do not feel any obligation to pretend that dependence/independence is
anything other than a continuum, nor do I see any value in doing so.

JE:-
If fitness dependence cannot be empirically differentiated from fitness
independence via SOME testable evolutionary theory then "anything goes"
simply because what remains the one same system and what constitutes a
Darwinian competing system to it, cannot be empirically differentiated.

I disagree. Continua are the things we measure. They are in fact the
grist
of empiricism.

JE:-
No. "Continua" without end CANNOT be measured. It is what sets the LIMITS to
continua which allow them to become measurable. Unless you _unambiguously_
state these limits as your critical frame of reference you are not saying
anything.


We are slaves to the data when it comes to continua, so it
is hardly "anything goes".

JE:-
"Anything goes" within evolutionary theory if it remains impossible to
empirically separate one contesting independent fitness from another! Are
you stating for the record that they cannot be empirically separated using
Darwinism?

You might ask, how does one measure the degree
of dependence/independence? That would be a great question.

JE:-
I have been asking exactly this for over 5 years, without (I may add) a
single reply from anybody which makes applied rational sense.


I don't know
if there are any metrics developed for measuring this directly, but I
don't
see any major obstacles in doing so. A simple approach might be to
estimate
the fraction of interactions that occur among members of a hypothetical
group compared with the number of interactions between group members and
agents hypothetically on the outside.
There may also be ways to measure
agency by estimating the coherence of an hypothetical group as it
interacts
with its environment, including other agents that are part of its (the
group, not the group's members) environment. One could also estimate the
strength of top-down influence over the behavior of group members. All of
these approaches could constitute empirical tests of boundedness, agency,
and internal mechanism (metabolism) that would establish or discredit the
real existence of a group.

JE:-
But without firstly proposing what exactly constitutes an independent
fitness within nature, no estimate of "the fraction of interactions that
occur among members" even becomes possible because no way exists of
separating claims of BIOLOGICAL memberships from non memberships.

Assuming that dependence/independence is a binary quality is not useful
IMHO. I can only see this assumption taking us down a rabbit hole. We
would eventually emerge back into the light in the same place we started.
It would be a waste of time IMHO.

JE:-
It does not matter how you define either as long as you cannot "ad hoc" one
into the other evading refutation when things get empirically tough for the
proposed explanation. In every multilevel theory that I have read fitness
dependence can magically transform itself into fitness independence at the
point of refutation entirely evading any test.

snip for brevity<

JE:-
You have not provided:

1) WHY you have rejected my argument out of hand.

I had explained WHY before and again here.

JE:-
You have not provided any empirical tests that I can see.

2) An alternative argument which can be tested empirically.

I think I have gone further in my argument about the empirical testability
of the existence of group agents here than I have in the past, although it
is false to say that I have not addressed this in the past. I doubt I
have
convinced you of the validity of my view here, but I hope that you will
grant me the same benefit of the doubt as I grant you.

JE:-
Please provide ANY EMPIRICAL TEST that anybody here can use make to make the
required separation. The tests you did list (below) remain insufficient for
the reasons given.


3) How a science of evolutionary theory can possibly exist if
researchers
remain free to define fitness independence and fitness independence in
any
way that they like.

If you didn't already know better, I hope you will acknowledge that this
is
a misleading smear of my position. I think that I am thinking in a more
focused and determined way about fitness dependence/independence than
most,
even if you and I disagree about how to do so.

JE:-
"Focus" depends entirely on you providing empirical tests and not just empty
talk. I have provided an empirical test but you have not. Please provide at
least one.


Surely it is obvious that whenever fitness independent forms are not
able to
be objectively differentiated from fitness dependent forms then an
evolutionary theory which remains testable against nature does not
exist.

I don't agree at least in part because I'm not sure what you mean.

JE:-
Here it is, again:
Darwinian theory separates contesting entities in a _very exact_ way: as
different fitness independent contesting organisms. My claim: this means
additive fitnesses (no matter how you measure fitness). IOW I claim that if
ANY defined fitness remains additive to one group then this additive group
MUST constitutes one population of contesting fertile organisms and NOT one
selectee, where:

1) Each fertile organism within that population, each with its own additive
fitness must compete to be selected.

2) Each population evolves (NOT each fertile organism).

snip<

Every time I try to make the discussion more clear by emphasizing that
group
fitness may not be a function of individual fitnesses at all you seem
to
steer it back to the additive/non-additive issue. Can we try to avoid
the
semantics about "dependence" and focus on a complete absence of a
functional
relationship?

JE:-
I will continue to steer discussion towards and not away from *ANY*
empirical test simply because the epistemology of science requires me to
do
so. I am happy to consider other empirically based alternatives as to
WHY an
additive in fitness group cannot constitute one selectee. So far you
have
not provided one.

to reiterate: without being able to _empirically_, i.e. objectively
differentiate between fitness dependency and fitness independency (which
includes fitness interdependency) using anybodies unambiguous theory, no
basis exists for the organism concept within Darwinism. Without this
concept
the science of biology cannot exist. If you argue that it can, what are
you
replacing it with?

I don't see the relevance of any of this to the point under discussion,
but
then we are probably just talking past one another.



The fitness of a honey bee colony may critically depend on the number of
bees in the colony because it must be able to keep the queen warm on the
middle when it gets cold in the environment.

JE:-
But it remains perfectly clear that the fitness of each sterile eusocial is
NOT simply additive to every other (no matter how you define fitness)
allowing such a total to empirically represent the fitness of any one
eusocial nest. Using my definition, this mean that one nest cannot be one
Darwinian population which only evolves, just one selectee which can only be
selected. What do you say they are and why?



Individual bees may die
while
keeping the queen warm at night as a sign of a healthy colony. Similarly,
the fitness of a colony may suffer if there is too much individual
reproduction. The factors effecting function at these two levels of
organization may be utterly and qualitatively different, and I view
fitness
as intimately connected with function.

JE;-
Yes, but connected to WHAT that you claim can be empirically SELECTED?
Darwinian reasoning provides an answer which has an empirical basis.

Everything I am talking about is
just as amenable to empiricism as your paradigm, as far as I can see.

JE:-
Please provide the so far missing empirical test which allows anybody here
to separate fitness dependency from fitness independency within a eusocial
situation. Your provided tests (below) are either invalid or incomplete (for
the reasons given).


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.

JE:-
Why no answer?


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?

I am referring to neither one. I am trying to steer the discussion to
the
case of no influence.

JE:-
No influence? How is such a thing possible? It seems to me that
everything
affects everything else given chaos theory where just one butterfly
flutter
can trigger the weather to change. What is required from is an empirical
way
to separate two entirely _contradictory_ effects as far as _fitness_ is
concerned: dependent and independent (which includes interdependent).

Here is a riddle for you. How can a human religious group that
prohibits
reproduction and advocates suicide for its group members have high
fitness at
the group level? [Remember - group fitness refers to the propensity
for
persistence and spawning of daughter groups.]

JE:-
At best it can only have an entirely illusionary "high fitness at the
group
level".

Fitness can be empirically estimated. I am not talking about anything
illusory.

JE:-
Please provide any actual empirical result and not just some estimate of it!
The terms "empirically estimated" remain contradictory. No estimate can
validly claim to be empirical simply because an estimate can only represent
an arbitrary guessed heuristic measure of something empirically real and not
the empirical truth in its own right.

At worst it remains obvious that such groups have a lower fitness
compared to others.

There's "obvious" again. I'm afraid that didn't persuade me at all. It
looks like you trying to avoid reason.

JE:-
Ok. I will try to refrain from using the word "obvious". I simply stated
that these groups must have a lower fitness compared to other groups which
do not prohibit "reproduction and advocates suicide for its group members
have high fitness at the group level". To me this seems obvious.

I know of no human group which "prohibits reproduction".
What human groups do is regulate this in some way. It seems clear to me
that
group selection is not required here given the fact that mean total
productivity per individual increases as group size increases but at a
cost
which has to be paid.

I made the riddle extreme to make my point clear. Of course, I am happy
to
see that you think the suppression of reproduction is really a continuum
of
effect.

JE:-
I never agreed that _reproduction_ was suppressed, only SUB reproduction. At
all times and without a single exception I unequivocally state that total
fitness per monocentric selectee per population of same must remain
maximized, i.e. this measure represents a critical empirically refutable
fitness maximand.

Just like your gene centric contemporaries you flatly refuse to discriminate
between sub reproduction (which only represents an incomplete act of
reproduction) and any completed act of reproduction. This is because you
continue to refuse to say what exactly is being sub reproduced as just a
part and what is defined as a reproduced whole with regards to fitness.
However, using my explanation reproduction is defined completed, if and only
if, the entities reproduced provide an empirical additive in fitness
population (no matter how you define fitness). Using this simple empirical
measure, a sterile form is provided with only two choices:

1) Remain as a fitness independent zero and always be selected against, e.g.
a mule.

2) Become a dependent nested fitness within a foreign fertile form where the
reproduction of yourself now represents an incomplete act of reproduction,
i.e. just an act of sub reproduction e.g. a sterile eusocial.

Nature attempts 2, _whenever possible_. Whenever this can be achieved, e.g.
eusocials, a nested sub fitnesses produced by integrated parts acts as if it
is fitness "altruistic" to the one, single, independent fitness which has
biologically absorbed it. Even here fitness "altruism" remains illusionary
because the only fitness "selfish" course this part has open to it is to
increase the fitness maximand within which it remains fully integrated.


Groups can evolve "suicide" but as a rare last resort mutualised group
defense mechanism without any group selection required, if and only if,
the
costs on average remain less than the gains where both may be units of
risk
(like an insurance company). I am happy to expand on this argument which
appears to me to remain neglected within evolutionary theory. Suicide as
a
way of life cannot evolve for the same reason that cannibalism as a way
of
life cannot evolve: the individual costs are greater than the individual
gains.

Strange you should mention cannibalism. In fact, it is a way of life in
many species.

JE:-
But I only refer to the cannibalization of one fertile form by another which
is very rare in nature and not to sub acts of cannibalism which would be the
cannibalization of infertile forms by fertile forms which I predict would be
common. It seems to me that your continued refusal to discriminate between
selected forms and just sub selected parts can only provide an incoherent
theory, i.e. just an irrefutable belief.

One of my dissertation chapters documented filial
cannibalism
(eating of one's own offspring) as a customary way of life in a marine
fish
species.

JE:-
In this discussion I refer to ANY biological entity wherein its fitness can
be added to another to produce one additive population fitness, as
_independent_ Darwinian moncentric selectees. ALWAYS, these empirically
consist of single fertile forms critically predicting that fertile forms
cannot evolve fertile form cannibalism as a way of life.


I have also suggested in publication that one reason male-only
parental care may be so common among fishes is that fathers would often
have the option to fine tune the number of offspring they eat relative to
the number they raise to fledging.

JE:-
"Fine tune" to what end? What is your critical frame of reference? Reducing
the number of what I define to be fitness dependent sterile sub forms via
sub form cannibalization can increase and not just decrease the total number
of these sterile parts which each parent raises to fertile and therefore
fitness independent, adulthood within one evolving population.

snip<


Your definition of group fitness as "the propensity for persistence and
spawning of daughter groups" remains a forever ongoing proposition and
therefore non testable.

Would you say the same about all single celled organisms?

JE:-
No. My theory: IF they simply add up to one verifiable population fitness
THEN they remain fitness independent, if not then they must be fitness
dependent (no matter how you define fitness). Simple and empirically
refutable.


Group persistence can always be increased at the
expense of group reproduction and vice versa allowing a reduction of one
to
be _explained away_ as some ongoing future increase for the other. For
your
argument to make rational sense at some stage you will have to define
criteria which require either "propensity for persistence" to become
more
important than a "spawning of daughter groups" or vice versa. It should
be
self evident that group reproduction cannot be selected to become
reduced in
order to increase group persistence simply because selection for
increased
group persistence (group survival) cannot win against group
reproduction.
What serves group selection the best is the same logic as to what serves
individual selection the best: lean and mean survival strategies which
free
up limited resources in order to maximize reproduction.

Fine. I see no problem for group selection in any of this.

JE:-
Yes, but this provided rationale only makes sense because I have
_persistently_ defined what can and _cannot_ constitute within nature a
single fitness independent selectee. OTOH you prefer to allow this key issue
to remain ambiguous (reversible) within what appears to be, mathematical
rationale evading a test of it against nature.

snip<

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:-
The only empirical example that I know of groups which have fitnesses
which
remain non-linear functions of their individual's fitnesses are organism
parts grouped within one fertile organism. To my knowledge all organism
group fitnesses remain linear. I you can provide documented examples
which
refute this then please do so./

You just keep dismissing and ignoring all such examples. You have been
provided with many such examples over the years.

JE:-
None of them were valid. Like your invalid example of cannibalism (above)
you and your colleagues continually fail to discriminate between parts and
wholes as they can be *EMPIRICALLY* determined. I remain happy to go over
each example again and again to demonstrate the truth of this. We could
begin by you listing examples.


I would include the
example in my riddle of human religious groups.

JE:-
My answer was simple enough: no riddle exists. Any paradox remains
diagnostic of just the quality of the premises that provided it. It is your
interpretation which provides the riddle and not mine, yet you continue
dismiss my interpretation out of hand.

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

Following on my riddle above, the fitness of a religious group could be
independent of the fitnesses of its component individuals in the sense
that
their may be no link between the two.

JE:-
I can see no way that "the fitness of a religious group" can be
"independent of the fitnesses of its component individuals" simply
because
the very existence of these groups remains dependent on just the
existence
of the individuals concerned.

This is false. In fact, it is undeniable that all members of every
religious group die, yet the group lives on.

JE:-
Not if individuals do not reproduce. Any additive in fitness "group lives
on" as just the empirical addition of the reproductive fitness of each
independent Darwinian individual (fertile form) within it. This being the
case, maximizing any grouped SURVIVAL fitness remains exactly the same thing
as maximizing independent individual REPRODUCTIVE fitnesses per Darwinian
selectee _removing_ selection at any supposed group survival fitness level
to the monocentric Darwinian reproductive fertile form level of selection.



Survival of the group MAY be
supported by reproduction of its component individuals, but this need not
be
the case.

JE:-
I argue that it cannot. Please supply an example to refute my claim.


The only valid question here is the nature of
their fitness relationship. For some reason it is this which remains
evaded.

It is evaded because it is false.

JE:-
What is false? ALL proposed fitness relationships? Just the ones I have
proposed here? Please note: you have never proposed a single fitness
relationship (the only exception is at the end of this post).


I am tempted to ask why you keep
avoiding
the "obvious fact", but then that would be rhetorical bullying.

JE:-
Yes it WAS "rhetorical bullying" (the fact that you stated what you said you
would not, means that you HAVE rhetorically stated it)

Do you agree that fitness relationships can exist? If you agree, which ones
can and cannot exist in your opinion? If you disagree then why can't ANY
exist?



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.

JE:-
Why no comment?

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:-
Again, why no comment?

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_?

They are independent if they have no influence on one another.

JE:-
Everything influences everything else in nature. The question that you
refuse to tackle is what influences can be categorized as fitness dependent
and fitness independent. By refusing to tackle this question you have
retreated into a non refutable position.

JE:-
But this is empirically impossible (see above).

You showed above that you don't understand my argument. You provided no
reason whatsoever to the contrary.

JE:-
I clearly stated that EMPIRICALLY everything in nature effects everything
else. It is just modeling fiction to assume that something in nature remains
independent only because nothing else in nature influences it (which is what
I understood your argument to mean). My argument: you have to be able to
classify every influence as fitness dependent and fitness independent as
contradictory influences. Why don't you propose an example so that we can
contrast our different perspectives?

They are independent to a degree if the fitness at one level is only
one of
several factors influencing fitness at the other level.

JE:-
I put it to you that factors which appear to you "at one level" as "only
one
of several factors influencing fitness at the other level" are actually
contained within a fitness. IOW, the "several factors influencing
fitness"
at a higher level must all be contained within a fitness at the lower
level.

"Must"? Are you stating an hypothesis again? Or are you saying that you
reason this to be physically or logically impossible?

JE:-
I am proposing that fitness at any level represents ONE EXACT THING and not
just many arbitrary things. Fitness at any level is exactly ONE reproductive
maximand for that level.


Here is another example: the fitness of a religion may critically depend
on
its ability to attract new members.

JE:-
This depends entirely on new members being reproduced elsewhere! If none
were then none could be imported without shrinking a competing group. If the
reproduction of all individuals within all groups ceases then all groups
become extinct.


This might be strongly influenced by
the quality and extent of ornamentation of churches and clergy. However,
the survival and reproductive output of church members may have nothing at
all to do with church and clergy ornamentation.

JE:-
If regulation of the reproduction of ALL individuals becomes influenced by
this church then the effect can be fitness mutual (increase the MEAN fitness
of all believers including the celibate priests). Their celibacy is an
insurance premium that any of the population may be enticed to pay which as
an insurance risk must remain smaller than the prospective gains so it can
be selected for. Just as some /most clergy may become influenced to remain
celibate some/most non clergy become influenced in the opposite direction:
be non celibate, hopefully in a way dictated by the clergy giving them power
over the reproduction of others within the group (act as a selective force).
Empirically, the majority of historical claims of absolute celibacy remain
false, i.e. the claim of complete celibacy was and remains, a predictable
political manipulation. In general: IF the MEAN level of Darwinian fitness
increase per individual per group then even if this requires a minority not
to reproduce at all, it can be selected for at just the monocentric
Darwinian fertile form level of selection.


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.
Done above.

JE:-
I can see dialog and general discussion but no definitions. To clear this up
please quote them.


JE:-
I can see no definition/definitions that you have provided above which
enables me or anybody else here to be able to empirically discriminate
between independent and dependent fitnesses!

If the fitness at one level of organization has no influence over fitness
at
another level, then they are completely independent.

JE:-
As I have repeatedly stated, this is just uncorrected, simplified, modeling
fiction. Please provide an empirical example in which "the fitness at one
level of organization has no influence over fitness at another level". Even
just the heuristic examples you provided (above) cannot verify that
"fitness at one level of organization has no influence over fitness
At another level". Every level must influence every other level.

If fitness at one
level determines fitness at another (apparently existing) level, then they
are completely dependent.

JE:-
But this is a proposed fitness association. Above, you stated they cannot
exist.

You have employed the key word "determine" in just an ambiguous way. To
remove this ambiguity, please indicate how anybody can test what actually
determines and what is only a result of this determination (separate cause
and effect) within your proposed fitness association?


If fitness at one level is influential over
fitness at another level, but does not determine that other fitness
entirely, then these fitnesses lie between the extremes of the continuum
of
dependence/independence.

JE:-
What constitutes determining fitness "entirely"? Unless you provide a non
"ad hoc" empirical frame of reference for this nobody can test it against
nature.

As I explained above, the existence of different
levels is subject to empirical testing.

JE:-
I still have no idea what these empirical tests are because you have not
supplied a non "ad hoc" empirical frame of reference.



In addition, fitnesses can be
empirically estimate, allowing for the empirical testing of
dependent/independence of fitness relationships.

JE:-
No. Any estimate of an empirical fitness remains entirely heuristic, i.e.
NON empirical.

snip<

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx




.

Quantcast