: Re: Hamilton's rule: A Kid In A Sweetshop

"John Edser" <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

I have left in most of the previous argument, even though our esteemed moderator may object, so we
know what 1) and 2) refer to.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Spencer only use the word "survival" to mean how long any organism lived. Thus: Those that
live longer are fitter, because fitter forms must live longer. If you define fitness in genetic
survival terms then Spencer's jingle equates "survival" with both maximal phylogenetic survival
(genes over organism generations) AND maximal organism reproduction, thus allowing the word to be
ambiguous, i.e. it can mean two CONTRADICTORY causations:
1) Survival = Maximal organism reproduction.
2) Survival = Maximal gene replication. Since 2) is empirically fitness dependent on 1) and not
vice versa, then only 1 is a valid _causation_. Nobody here will admit that 2) is entirely
dependent on 1). Hamilton argues that 1) is entirely dependent on 2) against ALL THE EVIDENCE
using just an invalid proposition, Hamilton's rule.

WM:- Well we finally see the root of your objection to Hamilton, and it is
- (surprise, surprise) - "gene centrism"! But your problem seems to be only in your own mind. It
is obvious that naked genes will not survive outside organisms - so in order for genes to
reproduce the organisms that carry them must reproduce. Hamilton's argument is in fact based on
that proposition. Hamilton DOES NOT argue that 1) is dependent on 2).

JE:- Then you do agree that 2) is dependent on 1)?

Yes. Genes do not reproduce outside of organisms (other than in the lab).

Quoted message said:

WM:- What Hamilton does argue is that maximal organism reproduction does not mean maximal
reproduction of only one's own offspring, but must include reproduction of any offspring that
share one's genes.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Unfortunately for Hamilton, all adult (fertile) forms within the same population must compete
against each other using Darwinian reasoning BEFORE fitness at Hamiton's gene level can even
start. Even adult relatives must compete against each other. This being the case, any reduction of
fitness at the donor organism level via Hamilton's gain at just a supposed gene level of
selection, is always selected against at the actual Darwinian organism level of the donor.

This is simply not true. There are several examples of eusociality in the animal kingdom. I believe
you have argued against haplo-diploids such as bees as being a true counter example to your logical
objection, since the workers are not capable of reproduction. But there are also examples of animals
that are capable of reproduction forgoing their own to help relatives. Perhaps the best example is
the naked mole rat. The conditions that could give rise to a mammal exhibiting eusocial behavior was
predicted by Richard Alexander based on Hamilton's rule before it was known that naked mole rats
were eusocial, and before Alexander even knew that naked mole rats existed!

Even without eusociality, there are numerous examples of animals, such as the meerkat and the
Florida scrub jay, where conspecifics help out others in raising young at a cost to themselves. You
would do well to review the article on page 634 of the October 24, 2003 issue of Science. You might
also try doing a search on the web for some of these species. Yet another interesting example is
slime molds (although I have no idea if the slime molds that combine to form a fruiting body are
related). Slime molds are aggregations of individuals, some of whom do not reproduce while others
get to become reproductive spores.

To put it very simply, there are in the real world tests of your statement above, and they prove it
to be incorrect. Since you love testable theories, how do you respond to that?

Quoted message said:

It does not matter that organism fitness altruism allows a hypothetical increase in fitness at
just a supposed gene fitness level if this costs an absolute decrease in donor organism fitness.
Hamilton's organism fitness altruism caused by his selfish geneism is selected against before it
can even begin. This alone, is logically consistent with the fact that
2) is dependent on 1). If a gene fitness was actually independent of organism fitness then
Hamilton's argument may be sustained. Not a single independent genomic gene fitness has ever
been documented within nature. Hamilton was living in a population genetics fairy land.

Let me try to parse the above. The first sentence is clearly false - if "organism fitness altruism"
gives an increase in "gene fitness", then it must give an increase in the total number of organisms
carrying the gene This follows from your previous statement (with which I agreed) that an increase
in gene fitness can only be achieved by and increase in organisms carrying the gene. . In this case
even if the "donor" organism has a decrease in fitness (which is what Hamilton supposed) there is
still an overall increase in organism fitness, i.e. the number of organisms carrying the gene.
Since this is clearly true, your second sentence is clearly false. Your third sentence is clearly
false, since (as I have just shown) a "Hamiltonian" increase in fitness is logically consistent
with 2) being dependent on 1). Your fourth and fifth sentences are moot, since nobody is arguing
that gene fitness is independent of organism fitness. In your sixth sentence you mysteriously
misspelled John Edser ;-)

(snip)

Quoted message said:

JE:- Darwin was correct. However, what nearly everybody has neglected to understand is that only
epistatic gene information and not just "genes" are important "in determining survival". Genes are
only mere letters of the alphabet. Heritable information is coded in words, sentences, paragraphs
pages, chapters and books.

So far I am in agreement, except that very many have explicitly stated that they understand this,
including your arch nemesis Mr. Dawkins.

Quoted message said:

Hamilton deleted all gene epistasis within has rule as well as any representation of absolute
fitness. You may have noticed that I did bother to include epistasis within:

r^eb>c

What chance can a selfish letter have battling an entire encyclopaedia of information?

Hamilton's rule includes epistatic effects by definition, since they affect the value of b. And of
course he represents absolute fitness, in fact he extends it to be an accurate measure of absolute
fitness instead of confining it to just the fitness of one organism.

Having said all the above, there is in fact considerable discussion in the real world of
evolutionary biology over whether the observed "altruistic" care for relatives in a number of animal
species is due to kin selection according to Hamilton's rule or is due to other effects. Perhaps,
John, you could discuss real results of real research. My prediction is that you won't.

Yours,

Bill Morse

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:-
Spencer only use the word "survival" to mean
how long any organism lived. Thus:
Those that live longer are fitter, because
fitter forms must live longer.
If you define fitness in genetic survival terms then
Spencer's jingle equates "survival" with both maximal
phylogenetic survival (genes over organism generations)
AND maximal organism reproduction, thus allowing the
word to be ambiguous, i.e. it can mean two CONTRADICTORY
causations:
1) Survival = Maximal organism reproduction.
2) Survival = Maximal gene replication. Since 2) is empirically fitness dependent on 1) and not
vice versa, then only 1 is a valid _causation_. Nobody here will admit that 2) is entirely
dependent on 1). Hamilton argues that 1) is entirely dependent on 2) against ALL THE EVIDENCE
using just an invalid proposition, Hamilton's rule.

Quoted message said:

WM:- Well we finally see the root of your objection to Hamilton, and it is
- (surprise, surprise) - "gene centrism"! But your problem seems to be only in your own mind. It
is obvious that naked genes will not survive outside organisms - so in order for genes to
reproduce the organisms that carry them must reproduce. Hamilton's argument is in fact based on
that proposition. Hamilton DOES NOT argue that 1) is dependent on 2). JE:- Then you do agree
that 2) is dependent on 1)?

WM:- Yes. Genes do not reproduce outside of organisms (other than in the lab).

JE:- Do you agree that a gene cannot be selected independently of an organism, and in Darwinism they
cannot be selected independently of their OWN PARENT (thus fertile) ORGANISM ?

Quoted message said:

WM:- What Hamilton does argue is that maximal organism reproduction does not mean maximal
reproduction of only one's own offspring, but must include reproduction of any offspring that
share one's genes.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Unfortunately for Hamilton, all adult (fertile) forms within the same population must compete
against each other using Darwinian reasoning BEFORE fitness at Hamiton's gene level can even
start. Even adult relatives must compete against each other. This being the case, any reduction of
fitness at the donor organism level via Hamilton's gain at just a supposed gene level of
selection, is always selected against at the actual Darwinian organism level of the donor.

WM:- This is simply not true. There are several examples of eusociality in the animal kingdom. I
believe you have argued against haplo-diploids such as bees as being a true counter example to your
logical objection, since the workers are not capable of reproduction. But there are also examples of
animals that are capable of reproduction forgoing their own to help relatives. Perhaps the best
example is the naked mole rat. The conditions that could give rise to a mammal exhibiting eusocial
behavior was predicted by Richard Alexander based on Hamilton's rule before it was known that naked
mole rats were eusocial, and before Alexander even knew that naked mole rats existed!

JE:- Eusociality only appears to verify Hamilton's rule! Indeed, the distorted haplodiploid
Hymenopterans were originally thought to fit Hamilton's rule like a glove. This example was trotted
ad nausium and with triumph, almost every time the rule was mentioned. Somebody "forgot" to include
common, multiple male matings of the Hymenopteran Queen making a mockery of Hamilton's explanation
re: the evolution of their haplodiploid system. The Isopterans which only have an ordinary diploid
system were known in Hamilton's time. No haplodiploidy exists here so Hamilton was not verified. The
same applies to Naked Mole rats. In all cases NON Hamiltonian view remains verified. This assumes
that all young that are sterile have just zero fitness to start with and have evolved as body part
extensions of a parent. This means they cannot be altruistic because they have zero fitness to give
away. Only this view is consistent with the simple fact of logic that if genes are selected at the
gene level then genes trapped in sterile forms can only have zero gene fitness at that level, also.
However, Hamilton allocated a fitness to a sterile form that was then imagined to be "given away" at
the organism level. Such a view was absurd. Any sterile form has zero fitness and thus zero fitness
to give away, period.

___________________________________________________
The genes within any sterile form ARE NOT SELECTED WITHIN THIS STERILE FORM, THEY ARE ONLY SELECTED
WITHIN THE PARENT WHO WAS FERTILE, within Darwinism. However using Hamilton they ARE selected within
the sterile form. This is the critical difference between these two views.
________________________________________________

The only common factor that fits the evolution of eusocial forms is that ENVIRONMENTAL ENCLOSURE,
i.e. enclosed nests or tunnels. In all forms discovered, mostly the queen controls the fertility of
the young. It does not matter if this does not happen all the time so that sometimes the young
control their own fertility. All that matters is that a pheromone regulates fertility within
all Eusocials and this requires an enclosed environment. Like a body requires an enclosed
environment to regulate cell growth, eusocials require an enclosed environment to regulate
organism fertility.

WM:- Even without eusociality, there are numerous examples of animals, such as the meerkat and the
Florida scrub jay, where conspecifics help out others in raising young at a cost to themselves. You
would do well to review the article on page 634 of the October 24, 2003 issue of Science.

JE:- They verify organism fitness mutualism (OFM) and not organism fitness altruism (OFA) because
the cost was an investment and NOT just an altruistic donation. You have to prove that the cost was
not an investment for a future gain.

You seem not to understand what a test is. To be able test anything you require valid points of
verification and refutation to be available. Please read Popper!

All the tests within NATURE verify OFM, but verification is not enough. OFM is refuted when the
total parental fitness of a parent within one population is SELECTED to be reduced via the
association. At the same time, the above verifies organism fitness altruism (OFA). This event has
never been documented within nature.

Quoted message said:

JE:- It does not matter that organism fitness altruism allows a hypothetical increase in fitness
at just a supposed gene fitness level if this costs an absolute decrease in donor organism
fitness. Hamilton's organism fitness altruism caused by his selfish geneism is selected against
before it can even begin. This alone, is logically consistent with the fact that
2) is dependent on 1). If a gene fitness was actually independent of organism fitness then
Hamilton's argument may be sustained. Not a single independent genomic gene fitness has ever
been documented within nature. Hamilton was living in a population genetics fairy land.

WM:- Let me try to parse the above. The first sentence is clearly false - if "organism fitness
altruism" gives an increase in "gene fitness", then it must give an increase in the total number of
organisms carrying the gene.

JE:- NO! it must give an increase in the total number of FERTILE organisms REPRODUCED FROM THE DONOR
carrying the gene.

Quoted message said:

snip<

Quoted message said:

JE:- Darwin was correct. However, what nearly everybody has neglected to understand is that only
epistatic gene information and not just "genes" are important "in determining survival". Genes are
only mere letters of the alphabet. Heritable information is coded in words, sentences, paragraphs
pages, chapters and books.

WM:- So far I am in agreement, except that very many have explicitly stated that they understand
this, including your arch nemesis Mr. Dawkins.

JE:- NO. They employed the word "epistasis" by deception. They redefined "epistasis" to now mean
ADDITIVE epistasis which simply means ZERO REAL EPISTASIS.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Hamilton deleted all gene epistasis within has rule as well as any representation of absolute
fitness. You may have noticed that I did bother to include epistasis within:

r^eb>c

What chance can a selfish letter have battling an entire encyclopaedia of information?

WM:- Hamilton's rule includes epistatic effects by definition, since they affect the value of b.

JE:- No, non additive epistasis, i.e. ALL REAL EPISTASIS was not allowed as "heritable". It was
"inherited" but "not heritable" and thus "not selectable", from Fisher.

Originally Hamilton's rule was only a model of two alleles at just one locus, so no epistasis could
exist! The extension of the original model to include more than one locus only allowed "additive"
epistasis,
i.f. NO REAL EPISTASIS simply because only additive effects were defined as "heritable" and thus,
"selectable".

WM:- And of course he represents absolute fitness, in fact he extends it to be an accurate measure
of absolute fitness instead of confining it to just the fitness of one organism.

JE:- NO absolute fitness is included within Hamilton's rule. BY DEFINITION all fitnesses within the
rule are ONLY RELATIVE. The term b represents a group selective fitness. This can be confused with
an absolute fitness. The only absolute fitness that COULD exist within the rule is cmax, but cmax IS
NOT REPRESENTED WITHIN THE RULE. I represented it as K:

rb>K-c

All of the above points I have posted many times in a period of over 4 years! It is obvious to me
that you do not read/understand them.

Quoted message said:

snip<

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]

"John Edser" <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

I am just going to make a few comments, because further discussion with you is obviously futile,
since you refuse to be confused by facts.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Eusociality only appears to verify Hamilton's rule! Indeed, the distorted haplodiploid
Hymenopterans were originally thought to fit Hamilton's rule like a glove. This example was
trotted ad nausium and with triumph, almost every time the rule was mentioned. Somebody "forgot"
to include common, multiple male matings of the Hymenopteran Queen making a mockery of Hamilton's
explanation re: the evolution of their haplodiploid system. The Isopterans which only have an
ordinary diploid system were known in Hamilton's time. No haplodiploidy exists here so Hamilton
was not verified. The same applies to Naked Mole rats. In all cases NON Hamiltonian view remains
verified. This assumes that all young that are sterile have just zero fitness to start with and
have evolved as body part extensions of a parent. This means they cannot be altruistic because
they have zero fitness to give away. Only this view is consistent with the simple fact of logic
that if genes are selected at the gene level then genes trapped in sterile forms can only have
zero gene fitness at that level, also. However, Hamilton allocated a fitness to a sterile form
that was then imagined to be "given away" at the organism level. Such a view was absurd. Any
sterile form has zero fitness and thus zero fitness to give away, period.

Unfortunately for your argument, the young naked mole rats that do not reproduce are not sterile.

Quoted message said:

JE:- They verify organism fitness mutualism (OFM) and not organism fitness altruism (OFA) because
the cost was an investment and NOT just an altruistic donation. You have to prove that the cost
was not an investment for a future gain.

That is precisely what the discussion in the article I cited was about. The article offered evidence
that you are wrong. You don't want to discuss the actual article.

(snip remaining discussion)

The one part of my post that you did _not_ include in the remaining discussion that I snipped
predicted that you would not actually discuss real research. My prediction was correct.

Yours,

Bill Morse