john edser

gains

be


everyone

"transfer"


are

be

a


JE:-
EITHER b is a fitness transfer OR a resource transfer it cannot be both
unless you wish to just loosely define fitness in a "hand waving" way,
i.e. just make any heuristic assumption of fitness in order to craft it
to fit a proposition that you happen to like. Fitness cannot be
transferred but it can within any heuristic assumption of it because now
you can validly play god, i.e. allow just about anything you wish, even
time moving backwards. Only the resources that limit fitness can be
transferred within a science of biology. Since the Neo Darwinists that
post her and (regrettably) yourself steadfastly refuse to differentiate
between mere heuristics and refutable theory then just about anything
goes, even the absurdity of a transferred fitness.

JE:-
You are simply evading issue. What EXACTLY did Hamilton's recipient
receive?

rule

and

does

employ

prediction


does).


JE:-
The observation that when rb>c a gene may just REALATIVELY and not
absolutely spread only allowing many HOW propositions but not a specific
WHY proposition (disallowing entirely any contention that Hamilton's
gene spread for just altruistic reasons which was the entire reason the
rule was invented in the first place) is NOT a prediction it is just a
"fait accompli" diagnosed by the rule. If you cannot measure anything
then you cannot predict anything.


"prediction".

JE:-
I'm sorry but just about all of it represents sloppy reasoning. You
cannot do much with just a comparison of A to B unless you provide a C
frame of reference.

measuring

time.


alleles

kin

multiple

independent


allele

heuristic

win

which


JE:-
I will take note that you did not challenge any of the above.


write

"defined"

the


dictate".

JE:-
All definitions are just dictates (assumptions of something). On their
own they mean nothing. They have to be combined within a valid theory
structure and that theory has to testable against nature. It is better
if altruism is diagnosed rather than merely defined using Hamilton Rule
because the rule is not a theory of anything. If you do just define it
you may end up just ignoring the critical difference between "black" and
"white" i.e. simply define an altruistic fitness debit (rb>c) and a
selfish fitness credit
(-rb<-c) to be exactly the same selective event when they cannot be.


JE:-
Thank you for your concern but I can assure you I am not at all
"confused" about this issue.

JE:-
It always will be just nonsensical to argue that Hamilton's gene was
somehow altruistic when it was only making a selfish gain where
unfortunately Hamilton's Rule cannot tell an altruistic donation (any
positive c) from a selfish gain (any negative c). My point remains:
given rb>c you cannot separate selfishness from altruism simply because
no fitness frame of reference exists to allow you to do so. This
contention is proven when you multiply the rule by -1.


JE:-
No, simply because NON Haltruism (the relative opposite proposition to
Haltruism)is equal using -rb<-c which yourself and the Neo Darwinistic
establishment continue to define to be exacty the same event. If
Haltruism = NON Haltruism as the one, same fitness event within a
science of biology then the concept of Haltruism is just a meaningless
self contradiction, i.e. then concept of Haltruism is proven to only be
absurd within the biological sciences even if it remains mathematically
valid.

then

as a

sign

whereas

the

position


refutation

JE:-
I do not now claim that the mirror image of the rule represents the
transformation of Hamilton's Rule after it has been multiplied by -1. In
the mirror r and b become independently reversed disallowing -rb because
-r multiplied by -b = rb. What is required is that rb be reversed as
just the one fitness entity allowing -rb (note that this is consistent
with rb representing one group selected entity where the fitness of each
Darwinian recipient becomes entirely dependent and not independent).

I am ONLY discussing the transformation of the rule when multiplied by
-1 which I argue represents an opposing (relative) selective event to
the non transformed rule but which yourself, NAS and the Neo Darwinian
establishment continue to argue represents exactly the same selective
event. These are just contradictory suppositions so one of them must
refute in favour of the other. Ok?

JE:-
No. Only the gross cost to the actor is diagnostic as to why Hamilton's
gene appears to spread on just a 100% relative basis because the actor
and recipients as just the one group selected entity remain fitness
independent. The actor only cares about the actor's costs. It makes no
difference to the actor's gross cost if it ends up as a benefit or a non
benefit to the recipients because they have entirely SEPARATE fitness
accounts.

I here is a numerical example:

r=0.25, b=5, c=6

rb>c 0.25*5>6

1.25>6 The actor is DEBITED with 6 fitness units so the actor is
altruistic (but the gene does not spread).

-rb<-6

-1.25<-6 The actor is CREDITED with 6 fitness units so the actor is
selfish (but still the gene does not spread).

The fact that yourself, NS and the Neo Darwinian establishment continue
argue that a debit of 6 is somehow exactly the same as a credit of 6
(which simply represents the Enron false accounting technique) just
because the gene did not spread in both cases proves your arguments to
be false on just a logical basis because contradictions do not exist
within any system of logic.

The rule cannot distinguish between relatively opposite fitness events
(OFS and OFA) which alone provide any causative reasons as to WHY
Hamilton's gene could/could not spread within the rule. All the rule can
do is diagnose that one allele has spread compared to another at the
same locus but for an entirely UNKNOWN reason. Here is a more obvious
example. If an immoral health system claimed to be able to cure all
cases of cancer by simply killing any patient with cancer (technically
curing the cancer) while another successfully treated only 40% of them
with a regime that only attacked the cancer cells and not the patient
the immoral health system that mass murdered people would be diagnosed
the more successful system for treating cancer. Laughable? Yes, but
instances exist of the cure being worse then the disease, i.e. a
relative gain that produces an absolute loss represents a loss and not a
gain. It is the difference between these types of events that separate
the reasonable from the unreasonable even if both are logically and thus
mathematically possible. The exact reason as to why any proffered cure
works or does not work or why Hamilton's gene appears to spread or not
to spread using only a 100% relative proposition is THE important
question, yet all Hamilton's Rule can do is diagnose when one allele
increases relative to another.

The employment of Hamilton's Rule by the Neo Darwinist establishment for
over 50 years (as dated from Haldane's Pub Rule) to incorrectly support
the evolution of organism fitness altruism (this was only ambiguously
defined by them as "altruism") after group selection failed to be able
to do so represents a typical example of the falsity of any "ends
justify the means" type of argument. This is simply because this type of
argument remains 100% relative to just nothing at all, i.e. is entirely
Post Modern. The misuse of just a relative proposition in this
particular case is even more galling because Hamilton's Rule was always
just another group selective proposition, anyway. The fact that it has
taken the Neo Darwinistic establishment up to 50 years just to work that
out constitutes proof of incompetence.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au

The recipient would have had a fitness of 0.5 if the