Quoted message said:Quoted message said:BOH:- Once more you have not given any explanation. I'll ask for a final time. Why is it insane to
suggest that there can be selection for an altruistic phenotype, but that this can lead to
extinction of the whole population?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:JE:- I cannot believe the audacity of the question. IF the population becomes extinct, THEN the
form "gaining" in inclusive fitness is proven to have sustained an absolute fitness loss simply
because it no longer exists.
Quoted message said:BOH:- Thank you for finally giving an answer. That's fine. Hamilton's Rule is a rule about
relative fitness, not absolute fitness.
Quoted message said:JE:- "Finally giving an answer"?!? I have been posting this "answer" for over 4 years. Are you so
nieve that you think that only Hamilton's Rule suffers from the absurd deletion of any testable
absolute measure, within Neo Darwinism?
BOH:- No, I am neither a handgrip, or a clenched hand.
JE:- I am neither a chair or a banana... (It feels so good to get that off my chest...)
<snip>
Quoted message said:BOH:- There is still a relative gain - and no statement is made about changes in overall
population growth rates (your "absolute loss"😉.
Quoted message said:JE:- Of course "there is still a relative gain"!@#$% However such a "gain" remains entirely
_arbitrary_ if the absolute fitness losses for the same gene are not included. Surely this is just
obvious?
BOH:- Is this a problem?
JE:- Yes, an ENORMOUS one for the altruistic side of the rule.
BOH:- the purpose of Hamilton's rule is to suggest one mechanism by which altruism can evolve.
JE:- Yes: specifically selection at the gene level can contradict selection at the organism level
forcing organism fitness altruism as a verification of the proposed process. However no point of
refutation was ever included for Hamilton's process. I have provide it and refuted Hamilton's
proposed process for the evolution of altruistic genes in nature. Of course, this does not make me
very popular. I can't imagine why. Neo Darwinists are unbiased lovers of the scientific truth..
aren't they....
BOH:- As long as the absolute fitness remains greater than 1, then there one will still observe the
species with its altruistic phenotype, and that is all Hamilton's rule tries to tell us.
JE:- If you are using the conventional view of "absolute fitness" how can this be >1 and still
require organism fitness altruism i.e. exclude fitness mutualism as causative?!?
BOH:- If the effect of the altruistic phenotype is to reduce the absolute fitness below 1, but to
increase it's own total (=direct and inclusive) fitness, then the proportion of the individuals in
the population will still increase, and again that is all Hamilton's rule tries to tell us.
JE:- Great. If a Banker suggests that an investment in A will provide a higher return than B, but
fails to inform me that he knows A _must_ become bankrupt because it was only a pyramid scheme,
then he is committing fraud. These schemes, like Hamilton's rule, simply leave out any absolute
measure, so it is easy to prove that everybody maintains a high return until the entire scheme
suddenly collapses, which it must. Unless an absolute measure is included within Hamilton rule the
anomaly that a gain at the gene level of selection also produces a an absolute loss _here_,
because it reduces fitness at "a competing" Darwinian organism level(!) then the rule is misused
to support organism fitness altruism within nature. Selfish geneism and Sociobiology, i.e. Dawkins
and Wilson have either knowingly perpetrated a false claim or are too stupid to reason out what
they are saying. Either way, the taxpayer continues to subsidise their rubbish, so why should Neo
Darwinism care?
It is what Hamilton failed to include within his rule that refutes the altruistic side of the rule.
Only the mutualistic side of the rule has any validity. Here no organism fitness altruism and thus
no reduction in absolute fitness is evident. Here you are dealing with organism fitness.
The Neo Darwinian establishment is recalcitrant. It has misrepresented concepts of fitness altruism
for over 50 years and refuses to address the absurdity of what it has done.
BOH:- Of course, the population will eventually go extinct, but in order to understand the dynamics,
you need Hamilton's rule to explain why the altruistic phenotype increased in proportion.
JE:- Oh, I see, even though Hamilton is proven wrong, we STILL "need Hamilton's rule to explain why
the altruistic phenotype increased in proportion" ? When are all these government funded closed
minds going to be opened? When the grants are stopped? Because Neo Darwinians have thrown out Popper
and think that only verification is required, they cannot see the absurdity of what you have
suggested. Hamilton proposed inclusive fitness caused by selection at JUST the gene level is
REFUTED. You are now REQUIRED to LOOK ELSEWHERE for a process "to explain why the altruistic
phenotype increased in proportion".
BOH:- You also need some population dynamic theory to explain the process of extinction, of course.
JE:- "population dynamic theory"?
Dear oh dear... All you need is a _valid_ Neo Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection
that _explicitly_ includes a term for total parental fitness.
Best Wishes,
John Edser Independent Researcher
PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia
[email hidden]