Please mote The below CORRECTION
JE:- In my discussion with NAS I allowed b = K-B where K = cmax and B = the number of recipients.
JE:- CORRECTION: Please replace the minus sign "-" with a multiplication sign so that the sentence
above now reads:
In my discussion with NAS I allowed b = KB where K = cmax and B = the number of recipients.
Explanation: The total group fitness b is the number of independently selected recipients B,
multiplied by the gains in reproductive fitness each is granted by NAS, K.
My apologies
John Edser Independent Researcher
PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia
[email hidden]
Note that cmax (maximum cost c) represents, in just negative_ terms, the abolute fitness of the
donor. This means the largest total number of reproductions that a donor could reasonably
expect to make.
When NAS added cmax to each recipient to save Hamilton's rule, he saved it by simply destroying the
more commonly employed altruistic side of the rule:
rb>c
NAS was actually employing the rarely used, mutualistic side of the "same" rule:
rb>-c
Here is what NAS proposed using my notation that exposes the mathematical anatomy of his proposal:
rBK>K-c
where:
K = cmax (maximal possible cost) r = relatedness IBD B = number of recipients c = costs
normally BK just remains hidden within one group additive fitness total, r. Hamilton ignored the
biological fact that organism selection is operating at the organism level before it can operate at
the gene level of inclusive fitness when just employing the total r as one independent fitness.
When K = c, which was NAS's solution when he added cmax to each recipient to attempt to save
Hamilton's rule then:
rBK>K-c
rBK>0
since K-c = 0 in this case.
Clearly, the supposed "altruistic" gene cannot fail to spread because it cost nothing at all to
spread it!
Any "zero cost" for organism fitness altruism just means that no organism fitness altruism was
actually employed. Thus NAS only employed organism fitness mutualism. However, this was a "valid"
solution because it used Hamilton's rule, albeit only the mutualistic side of the rule where
however, cause and affect are entirely reversed.
In fact, the gene that was spreading was a mutualistic gene and *NOT* an altruistic gene, period.
Hamilton's invalid inclusion of the mutualistic side and the altruistic side of the rule within
just the one "rule" was an absurdity. It allowed the false impression that an organism fitness
altruistic gene was spreading when in fact only an organism mutualistic gene was. The simple fact
is, the Neo Darwinism establishment is hopelessly biased in favour of organism fitness altruism and
sees it everywhere. Because they never employed Popper's basic epistemology they have got away with
it for over 50 years by misusing the totally arbitrary model devised by W.D. Hamilton which was
devised from an approximation of fitness at the gene level devised by Fisher, one of population
genetics founders.
The proof that the organism altruistic side of the rule is invalid is the simple fact that only the
altruistic side of the rule allows a relative inclusive fitness gain at an absolute inclusive
fitness loss! Here, as a REAL organism fitness altruistic gene gains in freq relative to a wild type
gene, both genes can be driven to extinction. Meiotic drive genes demonstrate such an absurdity.
Nature is not as stupid as population geneticists think she is. Nature prohibits any _selection_ for
a parental absolute fitness _loss_, always, no exceptions, period. Population geneticists flatly
refuse to incorporate any definition of absolute parental fitness within their reasoning. I have
tried for over 4 years to raise this most critical of all issues and have been met with nothing but
intellectual thuggery for my efforts. For Neo Darwinians, fitness is only ever "stochastic" which
simply means "arbitrary", i.e. they can move the goal posts to anywhere they wish to verify any view
they wish, anytime they wish it.
When using the mutual side of Hamilton's rule no fitness altruism is verified or even needed because
costs are either zero or negative. Of course, the mutualistic side of the rule CONTRADICTS and does
not COMPLIMENT the rule, i.e. they cannot BOTH be validly incorporated into the SAME rule because
fitness mutualism is the antithesis of fitness altruism. By incorporating both into the one rule,
Hamilton allowed a rule that absolutely contradicts itself, so his supposed rule cannot be refuted
and can verify almost anything anbody wishes.
To rid the rule of being just totally arbitrary
i.e. being 100% self contradictory, a new term must be incorporated within the existing rule that
represents absolute fitness. This is why I included K within the rule:
rb>K-c
Now the rule has a testable ceiling so the rule can be tested to refutation as Popper required all
valid scientific suppositions, even MODELS.
Would anybody here like to attempt to prove that the above rule is invalid for organism
fitness altruism?
__________________________________________________
I have requested the Neo Darwinian professionals that post here to clearly explain to sbe readers
why only the altruistic side of the rule allows just a relative inclusive fitness gain at an
absolute inclusive fitness loss, but not a single one of them will respond. They must respond to
retain any shred of credibility.
___________________________________________________
John Edser Independent Researcher
PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia
[email hidden]
[please note change of email address]