Text 1331, 273 rader
Skriven 2005-01-04 20:31:00 av John Edser (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Hamilton's Nonsense
===============================
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net>
> In fact, Hamilton's rule ("The gene (or trait) will increase
> in frequency if rb>c") is valid regardless of the frequency
> of the gene (or trait) in the population.
JE:-
The gene or trait in the population cannot
even RELATIVELY increase (an increase
measured as just a comparison between incomplete
totals of the altruistic allele and the
the wildtype allele) if the mutated allele
exists as dominant to its competitive wildtype
non altruistic allele and 100% kin selects.
Jim, you are REQUIRED to mention EXACTLY what
can and CANNOT be measured by the rule and
list all over simplifications that Hamilton et al
stipulated. You must also provide a REFUTABLE
THEORY with at least one point of refutation
that exists within it, from which
Hamilton's non refutable over simplified
model was simplified. Logically you cannot
make modelling simplifications/oversimplifications
from just nothing at all! This question
ALWAYS remains ignored because Hamilton et
al cannot provide any answer to it.
1) What can be measured by Hamilton's Rule.
Just a 100% relative comparison of
the freq. of only one genomic allele at
just one locus. The rule cannot measure
the total fitness count of any allele because
it defines fitness as always ongoing so that
no total, i.e. finite fitness now exists.
2) Simplifications:
i) Random mating.
ii) Zero epistasis including epistatic gene
fitnesses.
iii) Dominance ignored.
iv) Gene counts only over organism generations
and not gene generation making Hamilton's fitness
count non logically self consistent. For the count
to become self consistent ALL gene replications from
each gene parent, including mitotic replications,
must be counted.
iv) All fitness totals remain ongoing and
therefore incomplete, by definition.
3) Over Simplifications:
The total Darwinian fitness of the actor
remains deleted from the rule.
4) The theory from which the model was derived.
[an excerpt from my book in preparation "Happy
Selecton's In Nature" (all rights reserved)
now follows:
"Darwinian theory is the only refutable evolutionary
theory that exists, to this very day. This theory
states that each parent must maximise the total
number of fertile forms it reproduces into one
population because those that do not do so for
_any_ reason are selected against. This means that
the total Darwinian fitness of any Darwinian selectee
cannot be _selected_ to be reduced. A measure of
Darwinian fitness is the total number of fertile
forms reproduced into one population by each parent.
This Darwinian fitness maximand is the only refutable
maximand that exists within biology. It can be tested
to refutation via a simple reversal of its selective logic.
This logic states that every parental total fitness is
compared to every other by simple default within one
population. Via this comparison parent/parents with the
largest total are selected for. In fact every form is
selected for if it trends to increase and not decrease
its total Darwinian fitness. This means that even though
a form is selected against using total fitness comparisons
as long as it exists within an expanding sub population
it has a future. The converse also applies: if a form is
selected for but is trending to an absolute Darwinian
fitness decrease it is heading for extinction. This is
only possible if a form increases its relative fitness but
decreases its absolute fitness. In economics this is known
as a relative gain for an absolute cost. Only Darwinism
explicitly prohibits such irrational action to be selected
for.
If the total Darwinian fitness of every member of one
population can be artificially maintained as equal
then all evolution by natural selection must now cease
within that population because every maximand fitness that
is compared by simple default remains the same for all
selectees. If all selection is not halted then total
Darwinian fitness stands refuted. Only rhe total
Darwinian fitness proposition can force all evolution
within a natural population to be halted. No other
defined fitness, including Hamilton's can do so.
This is why only Darwinian total fitness can be
tested to refutation and only it constitutes a rational
fitness concept within biology.
Hamilton et al established a 2nd but only heuristic and
therefore non refutable level of selection that was
incorrectly allowed to contest and win against Darwin's
refutable single fertile form level of selection forcing
organism fitness altruism via selfish geneism. A model
gene level of selection was argued to force a lowering of
Darwinian organism fitness via just one genomic gene maximising
its own (selfish) fitness independent of the Darwinian fertile
organism level of selection and all others genomic gene
fitnesses. To achieve this revolution Hamilton's gene must
be allocated an _independent_ fitness. Selfish geneism
cannot function if Hamilton's gene fitness remains epistatic
in fitness to any other gene within the same genome because
these genes are now being forced to compete against each other
and not just cooperate to provide a Darwinian fitness benefit.
To allow this hypothetical state all complex non linear fitness
(gene fitness epistasis) had to be deleted along with all other
non linear (epistatic) information. Thus Hamilton et al firstly
simplified Darwinian theory via his deletion of all epistasis.
This also required random mating to avoid the geometric costs
of epistasis. This cost only becomes apparent when selfish gene
alleles at more than just one locus attempt to sexually select
each other, e.g. Dawkins Green Beard model. Here the lineal
gains produced via this sexual selective process are less
then the costs since the cost of epistasis increases
geometrically as e increases:
(r^e)b > c
This is why only random mating was stipulated by Hamilton
et al and the variable e simplified to 1 so it could
be deleted entirely and then just forgotten.
The above inequality means that unless random mating can
always be maintained such that Hamilton's selfish genes
(plural) never attempt to sexually select each other greatly
reducing their ability to spread on just a non definitive 100%
relative basis (as measured by the rule) where all gene fitness
epistasis also remains 100% deleted, Hamilton's fitness selfish
gene cannot exist within nature disallowing organism
fitness altruism at Darwin's single, fertile organism level
of selection. None of these required simplifications exist
within nature so Hamilton et al are only forcing unnatural
conditions upon nature for their own ends. The deletion of
the total fitness of the actor from within the rule remains
a _critical_ modelling over simplification. It divorces
Hamilton's oversimplified model entirely, from the theory
it was oversimplified from: Darwin's. This means Hamilton's
simplifications must now stand on their own feet,
i.e. they now have to be valid within _nature_. This is
due to the process of oversimplification. The refutable
point of Darwinian theory, total Darwinian fitness, i.e.
its very heart, was deleted forcing Hamilton's Model to
become a competitive theory of _nature_ to Darwin's. No
longer can Hamilton's Model cling to Darwin's apron strings
as a valid simplified model of Darwin's theory that can be
employed to help test the theory it was simplified from. Now,
if one is right the other must be wrong, so its becomes
a battle to the epistemological death between Darwin and
Hamilton.
A result of oversimplification is that the rule, which can
only employ the sign of c to separate selfish geneism from
organism fitness mutualism (its selective nemesis), remains
arbitrary. Without the total fitness of the actor included
within the rule so that the rule can provide a refutable point
of reference Hamilton's 100% relative rule cannot discriminate
between selfish genes promoted at just his heuristic gene level
from self exclusive mutualism promoted at Darwin's fully testable
level. This means that all cases of organism fitness altruism
(selfish geneism) that are accounted for by the rule may have
been mutualistic selected for at the Darwinian level
of selection. We can never know. In fact, for
Hamilton's selfish gene to _absolutely_ spread organism fitness
mutualism is required. Unless the total fitness of the actor
increases and does not decrease the total fitness of Hamilton's
selfish allele it may only relatively increase but absolutely
decrease forcing all alleles to extinction. This mutually
destructive act can be observed within nature via meiotic
drive genes. These genes are very rare because, like cancer
cells, they have no future because they lower and do not raise,
total Darwinian fitness. This does not exclude them from
emerging via mutation. What remains excluded via Darwinian theory
is that these genes can be selected _for_. If Hamilton's
selfish gene is to have any future it has to be measured
via the rule to absolutely increase and not just relatively
increase. To achieve this, selfish geneism must become organism
fitness mutualism its selective nemesis. Thus the only possible
explanation that allows selfish genes to absolutely spread at
Hamilton's heuristic gene level of selection is a consistent
misdiagnosis of organism fitness altruism (selfish geneism)
which in reality was organism fitness mutualistic. A consistent
misdiagnosis remains possible because the oversimplification
of Darwinism to create Hamilton's Rule required the total
fitness of the actor to be deleted from the rule making the sign
of c arbitrary within it. Since the rule has been employed
for over 50 years as a stand alone fitness accounting device,
but never included any constant term within it and does not implicitly
refer to one, it remains fitness irrational allowing a consistent
misdiagnoses of selfish geneism. All the time, organism fitness
mutualism was really at work within the rule but selfish genes
have taken all the credit.
The biological reality is simply, all genomic genes remain
dependently selected for at the one Darwinian fertile form
level, i.e. no independent gene level of selection actually
exists within nature. Hamilton's view that genes within
sterile forms can have a fitness is not correct because
all genes within sterile forms remain within a selective dead
end so their fitness is just zero. Genes within infertile forms
are only selectable at their _parents_ fertile form level of
selection. Altruism (which was mutualism) has been
misdiagnosed within Hamilton's 100% and thus fitness irrational
rule simply because the sign of c within the rule that
is used to differentiate them remained arbitrary. Without
any frame of reference at all, Hamilton's Rule cannot logically
separate altruism from mutualism or provide just one Popperian
point of refutation. Only some missing constant fitness appended
to the rule providing it with a refutable frame of
reference allows either. The only total fitness that can represent
this missing constant is total Darwinian fitness (the total number
of fertile forms reproduced into one population by each parent)
which was deleted from the rule via the Neo Darwinian modelling process
of oversimplification. Thus we come full circle, back to Hamilton's
critical point of oversimplification. The lesson learnt from this
exercise is that a simplified model cannot validly contest and then
replace the theory it was simplified from."
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com
---
* RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
* RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/4/05 8:31:07 PM
* Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)
|