john edser

JE:-
HR remains ambiguous at best and just a hopeless contradiction at worst,
only describing a useless heuristic for evolutionary theory. HR can mean
different EMPIRICAL events depending on what Hamilton is supposed to have
meant.

Loci have two alleles in diploid species so alleles and not loci are
inherited in a Mendelian fashion firmly placing the focus of HR on just
alleles and not loci. Because an allele at any locus can act in an
independent way within Mendel's laws does not mean that allele must also be
independent in FITNESS. Yet, HR only addresses INDEPENDENT FITNESSES,
specifically a comparison of two alternative INDEPENDENT FITNESS pathways
for just a part of the total resources available for the actor to convert
into reproductives of itself. These are represented by rb and c where in
both cases an independent proactive actor must reprocess x resources in just
one of two NON Darwinian and contrary ways:

Contrary empirical acts for Hamiltonian (non Darwinian) resource processing:

(a) Transfer x resources via the actor to a group of just
passive organism competitors allowing them to increase their collective
reproductive effort by exactly b extra organisms only leaving R-x resources
for the actor to reproduce itself with where R represents the total
resources set aside for actor reproduction. This act decreases the actor's
fitness by c.

(b) Transfer x resources via the actor to the actor allowing
the actor (not the recipients) to increase the actor's reproductive effort
by exactly c extra organisms because the actor now has R+x resources
available for reproduction where R represents the total resources set aside
for actor reproduction. This act decreases the recipients as a whole fitness
by b.

The above are the only two UNCONDITIONAL EMPIRICAL events that actually
exist within the rule. They can be represented thus:

Actor Altruism: ANY positive sign of c. The fact that b should also be
positive (provide a reproductive gain for recipients as a whole) does not
make the sign of c conditional to b it simply means that within any argued
event where the sign of c is positive but b is negative, this refutes the
proposition that x resources WERE SUFFICIENT. X resources are transferred
UNCONDITIONALLY to recipients from the actor by the actor whenever c is
positive.

Actor Selfishness: ANY negative sign of c. The fact that b should also be
negative (provide a reproductive loss for recipients as a whole) does not
make the sign of c conditional to b it simply means that within any argued
event where the sign of c is negative but b is positive, this refutes the
proposition that x resources WERE SUFFICIENT. X resources are transferred
UNCONDITIONALLY from recipients from to the actor by the actor whenever c is
negative.

Because the actor and recipients as one group represent INDEPENDENT and
competing fitness events for the same x resources within HR, how the actor
converts x resources and how the recipients as one whole convert them,
remains solely an INDEPENDENT property of each. If you allow what the
recipients do with x resources as one group to also be dependent on the
actor or vice versa then no separation of CRITICAL actor fitness and
recipient group fitness exists making the rule an invalid FITNESS
proposition.

The remaining two cases remain logically invalid within HR:

Mutualism: Negative c and positive b:
This is just an INVALID UNACCOUNTED for magical INCREASE in fitness for both
which remains just an impossibility unless a 3rd party provides the missing
resources to pay for the mutual fitness increase. Hamilton's proactive actor
cannot both steal and donate providing a magical mutual resource increase!
Mutualism is just a free lunch provided by a 3rd party which is unaccounted
for within Hamilton's Rule.

Spite: Positive c and negative b:
This is just an INVALID UNACCOUNTED for magical DECREASE in fitness for both
which also remains an impossibility unless a 3rd party steals the missing
resources to cause the mutual fitness decrease. Hamilton's proactive actor
cannot both steal and donate providing a magical mutual resource decrease!
Spite is just highway robbery by a 3rd party unaccounted for within
Hamilton's Rule.

(c) The actor employs all of R resources to reproduce itself
sexually allowing one allele to increase within one population in the normal
Darwinian way. This represents the absolute opposite of BOTH contrary
propositions a and b. The main difference between a and b compared to c is

1) Only c is empirically based (not just a heuristic exercise) so it does
not allow any contradictions.

2) Only c maximizes genetic epistasis within r (all empirical gene fitnesses
remain entirely epistatic).

3) Both a and b can be validly deleted by Occam's Razor leaving only c
within the science of biology.

4) Propositions a and b were and remain, just oversimplifications of
proposition c where TDF was deliberately deleted within HR. This
oversimplification only heuristically reversed cause and effect within the
rule. This means that both a and b cannot be allowed to contest and win
against c to produce altruism as Neo Darwinism has allowed it to do for
nearly half a century. What Neo Darwinists have been passing off as
(invalid) _conditional_ altruism for nearly half a century can only have
been _unconditional_ mutualism which remains entirely excluded from HR.


Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@tpg.com.au