sci.bio.evolution mailing list

[John Edser]

--Apple-Mail-5D1582A4-C71C-43E2-A644-8E44CA1916EB
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



Sent from my iPad

=20
Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: Gene centric junk is organism centric gold.
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
=20

=20

More evidence that that the convenient gene centric "junk" non coding D=
=20
http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/38976/title/Dro=

sophila-s-New-Genes/

Daryl, John, Snow or something along those lines, have you ever
considered that the Junk-DNA is not really Junk is bullshit?
=20
=20
[moderator's note: Perhaps you could be more specific about
what it is you're arguing? "bullshit" is a pretty vague
accusation. - JAH]

All right, I'll be more specific. ENCODE Consortium's claim that 80% of
the human genome is not junk is feces flung in the direction of
biochemistry. Graur et al. is a paper I highly recommend. It takes down
=20
http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/20/gbe.evt028.full.p=

df+html

=20
--
Apidium23

Thanks. This is the most complete rebuttal of ENCODE that I have seen. A=

lthough Larry Moran (on

his Sandwalk blog) gave a good rebuttal when ENCODE first published. I ha=

ve to mention that Dan

Graur (with Wen-Hsiung Li) is the author of my most well worn textbook, "=

Fundamentals of Molecular

Evolutiion". I recommend the book to John Edser.
William L Hunt

Your welcome. I have to say, Edser (Daryl) seems to have been deceived=20
by ENCODE, and given that he might not have much knowledge on genetics,=20=
he might as well fall for ENCODE.

http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/ENCODE/nature05874.pdf



JE:- Just a PILOT study of ja 1% sample of the human genome concluded:

"First, our studies provide convincing evidence that the genome is pervasive=
ly transcribed, such that the majority of its bases can be found in primary t=
ranscripts, including non-protein-coding transcripts, and those that extensi=
vely overlap one another. Second, systematic examination of transcriptional r=
egulation has yielded new understanding about transcription start sites, inc=
luding their relationship to specific regulatory sequences and features of c=
hromatin accessibility and histone modification. Third, a more sophisticated=
view of chromatin structure has emerged, including its inter-relationship w=
ith DNA replication and transcriptional regulation."

My endlessly repeated point: GENETIC EPISTASIS was and remains 100% artifici=
ally deleted from rb>c . It is just biologically BASIC that more than 1 gene=
(2 alleles at a single locus) is required to be inherited and then turned o=
n to code for any single phenotypic trait. This being the case, epistasis mu=
st be minimally included within Hamilton's rule rb>c where e=3D2 or more:

(r^e)b >c

As e increases arithmetically r decreases geometrically rendering the correc=
ted rule inoperable. This provides the only solution to the as yet, unsolved=
contradiction that we are simultaneously related and unrelated to chimps. A=
t Hamilton's IBD gene level we are entirely unrelated but at Darwin's organi=
sm level we are closely related. Neo Darwinism simply cannot have it both wa=
ys! The contradiction is empirically resolved for the organism level ie agai=
nst the proposed gene level. IOW, organisms don't care a fig where their gen=
es have come from IBD, as long as the dam things work together.

Not a single Neo Darwinist will reply to any of this, including Dr Hunt.=20

You may have noted in the literature EO Wilson, in his 80's no less, has fin=
ally decided that rb>c is nothing more than what it actually is: empty mathe=
matics. I have been saying this here for over 15 years. Dawkins et al is hop=
ping mad..

Regards,

John Edser

Independent Researcher=20

***@ozemail.com.au

Twitter: @intelligent50

Please go to @RichardDawkins et al twitter Ac and protest the huge sums of m=
oney he is making via his misrepresentation of Darwinism as contradictory In=
clusive Fitness.



--Apple-Mail-5D1582A4-C71C-43E2-A644-8E44CA1916EB
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D=
utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto"><div style=3D"-webkit-text-size-adjust: aut=
o;"><br><br>Sent from my iPad</div><div style=3D"-webkit-text-size-adjust: a=
uto;"><br>On 7 Feb 2014, at 2:49 pm, "sci.bio.evolution moderation account" &=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:***@darwin.ediacara.org">***@darwin.ediacara.org</a>&gt=
; wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"-webkit-text-size-a=
djust: auto;"><div><span>Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution</span><br><span>Appro=
***@fuck.off</a>&gt;</span><br><span>Subject: Re: Gene centric junk is=
organism centric gold.</span><br><span>Organization: <a href=3D"http://Aioe=
.org">Aioe.org</a> NNTP Server</span><br><span>References: &lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:4116B4AD-51A0-4F10-AF57-***@ozemail.com.au">4116B4AD-51A0-4F10=
-AF57-***@ozemail.com.au</a>&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lch5qd$1rrg$=
***@darwin.ediacara.org">lch5qd$1rrg$***@darwin.ediacara.org</a>&gt; &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:lcm7qs$41v$***@darwin.ediacara.org">lcm7qs$41v$***@darwin.ediacara.or=
g</a>&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lcu56t$2528$***@darwin.ediacara.org">lcu56t$25=
28$***@darwin.ediacara.org</a>&gt;</span><br><span></span><br><span>William L H=
unt wrote:</span><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 14:5=

<span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D=

"cite"><span>Apidium23 wrote:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquot=
e type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>Jo=
hn Edser wrote:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote=
type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquo=
te type=3D"cite"><span>More evidence that that the convenient gene centric "=
junk" non coding DNA hypothesis was itself junk has emerged:</span><br></blo=
ckquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><bl=
ockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><=
span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockqu=
ote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><block=
quote type=3D"cite"><span><a href=3D"http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles=
.view/articleNo/38976/title/Drosophila-s-New-Genes/">http://www.the-scientis=
t.com//?articles.view/articleNo/38976/title/Drosophila-s-New-Genes/</a></spa=
n><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D=
"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D=
"cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>=
<blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite=
"><span>Daryl, John, Snow or something along those lines, have you ever</spa=
n><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><bloc=
kquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>considered that the Jun=
k-DNA is not really Junk is bullshit?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></=
blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote t=
ype=3D"cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockq=
uote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span=

</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"=
<blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>[moderator's note=

: Perhaps you could be more specific about</span><br></blockquote></blockquo=
te></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockqu=
ote type=3D"cite"><span>what it is you're arguing? "bullshit" is a pretty va=
gue</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cit=
e"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>accusation. - J=
AH]</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cit=
e"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span></span><br></bl=
ockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote typ=
e=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockqu=
ote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockq=
uote type=3D"cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><=
blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"=

<span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D=

"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span></span><br>=
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote=
type=3D"cite"><span>All right, I'll be more specific. ENCODE Consortium's c=
laim that 80% of</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cit=
e"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>the human genome is not junk is feces flu=
ng in the direction of</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D=
"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>biochemistry. Graur et al. is a paper=
I highly recommend. It takes down</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><bloc=
kquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>ENCODE better than I ev=
er could, so here's the paper:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquo=
te type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></b=
lockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span><a href=3D=
"http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/20/gbe.evt028.full.pdf+=
html">http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/20/gbe.evt028.full=
.pdf+html</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">=
<blockquote type=3D"cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockq=
uote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>--</span><br></blockquote=

</blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>Apid=

ium23</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockqu=
ote type=3D"cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote typ=
e=3D"cite"><span> &nbsp;&nbsp;Thanks. This is the most complete rebuttal of E=
NCODE that I have seen. Although Larry Moran (on</span><br></blockquote><blo=
ckquote type=3D"cite"><span>his Sandwalk blog) gave a good rebuttal when ENC=
ODE first published. I have to mention that Dan</span><br></blockquote><bloc=
kquote type=3D"cite"><span>Graur (with Wen-Hsiung Li) is the author of my mo=
st well worn textbook, "Fundamentals of Molecular</span><br></blockquote><bl=
ockquote type=3D"cite"><span>Evolutiion". I recommend the book to John Edser=
.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span> &nbsp;&nbsp;Willia=
m L Hunt</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span></span><br><=
/blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><span>Yo=
ur welcome. I have to say, Edser (Daryl) seems to have been deceived </span>=
<br><span>by ENCODE, and given that he might not have much knowledge on gene=
tics, </span><br><span>he might as well fall for ENCODE.</span><br></div></b=
lockquote><br><blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"-webkit-text-size-adjust: a=
uto;"><div><span></span></div></blockquote><div><p><font color=3D"#292526" f=
ace=3D"AdvP4E954F"><span style=3D"font-size: 13px; -webkit-text-size-adjust:=
auto;"><a href=3D"http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/ENCODE/nature05874.p=
df">http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/ENCODE/nature05874.pdf</a></span></=
font></p><p><font color=3D"#292526" face=3D"AdvP4E954F"><span style=3D"font-=
size: 13px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><br></span></font></p><p><font c=
olor=3D"#292526" face=3D"AdvP4E954F"><span style=3D"font-size: 13px; -webkit=
-text-size-adjust: auto;">JE:- Just a PILOT study of ja 1% sample of the hum=
an genome concluded:</span></font></p><p style=3D"-webkit-text-size-adjust: a=
uto;"><span style=3D"font-size: 10pt; font-family: AdvP4E954F; color: rgb(41=
, 37, 38);">"First, our studies provide convincing evidence that the genome i=
s pervasively transcribed, such that the majority of its bases can be found i=
n primary transcripts, including non-protein-coding transcripts, and those t=
hat extensively overlap one another. Second, systematic examination of trans=
criptional regulation has yielded new understanding about transcription star=
t sites, including their relationship to specific regulatory sequences and f=
eatures of chromatin accessibility and histone modification. Third, a more s=
ophisticated view of chromatin structure has emerged, including its inter-re=
lationship with DNA replication and transcriptional regulation."</span></p><=
p style=3D"-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><font color=3D"#292526" face=3D"=
AdvP4E954F"><span style=3D"font-size: 13px;">My endlessly repeated point: GE=
NETIC EPISTASIS was and remains 100% artificially deleted from rb&gt;c . It i=
s just biologically BASIC that more than 1 gene (2 alleles at a single locus=
) &nbsp;is required to be inherited and then turned on to code for any singl=
e phenotypic trait. This being the case, epistasis must be minimally include=

<p style=3D"-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><font color=3D"#292526" face=3D=

"AdvP4E954F"><span style=3D"font-size: 13px;">(r^e)b &gt;c</span></font></p>=
<p style=3D"-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">As e increases arithmetically r=
decreases geometrically rendering the corrected rule inoperable. This provi=
des the only solution to the as yet, unsolved contradiction that we are simu=
ltaneously related and unrelated to chimps. At Hamilton's IBD gene level we a=
re entirely unrelated but at Darwin's organism level we are closely related.=
Neo Darwinism simply cannot have it both ways! The contradiction is empiric=
ally resolved for the organism level ie against the proposed gene level. IOW=
, organisms don't care a fig where their genes have come from IBD, as long a=
s the dam things work together.</p><p style=3D"-webkit-text-size-adjust: aut=
o;">Not a single Neo Darwinist will reply to any of this, including Dr Hunt.=
&nbsp;</p><p style=3D"-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">You may have noted in=
the literature EO Wilson, in his 80's no less, has finally decided that rb&=
gt;c is nothing more than what it actually is: empty mathematics. I have bee=
n saying this here for over 15 years. Dawkins et al is hopping mad..</p><p s=
tyle=3D"-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">Regards,</p><p style=3D"-webkit-tex=
t-size-adjust: auto;">John Edser</p><p style=3D"-webkit-text-size-adjust: au=
to;">Independent Researcher&nbsp;</p><p style=3D"-webkit-text-size-adjust: a=
uto;"><a href=3D"mailto:***@ozemail.com.au">***@ozemail.com.au</a></p><p=
style=3D"-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">Twitter: @intelligent50</p><p sty=
le=3D"-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">Please go to &nbsp;@RichardDawkins et=
al twitter Ac and protest the huge sums of money he is making via his misre=
presentation of Darwinism as contradictory Inclusive Fitness.</p></div><div>=
<br></div></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail-5D1582A4-C71C-43E2-A644-8E44CA1916EB--

[Apidium23]

Post by John Edser
oney he is making via his misrepresentation of Darwinism as contradictory In=
clusive Fitness.

So, you're going to spam Richard Dawkins? Remember, he's *the* NUMBER
ONE evolutionary biologist, and YOU'RE NOT.

[John Edser]

Sent from my iPad

Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server

Post by John Edser
oney he is making via his misrepresentation of Darwinism as contradictory In=
clusive Fitness.

So, you're going to spam Richard Dawkins? Remember, he's *the* NUMBER
ONE evolutionary biologist, and YOU'RE NOT.

JE:
Dawkins is wrong, period.

BTW, as EOW correctly pointed out, Dawkins has not done any research for many years. All he is today is an over hyped publicist selling incorrect science to the public for money

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

U
--
Apidium23

[Apidium23]

Post by John Edser
Dawkins is wrong, period.

His atheist crap *might* be wrong, but his old biological works have
merit. I was merely pointing out that his biological work has merit,
while "your" ENCODE crap doesn't have merit.

[William L Hunt]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:27:26 -0500 (EST), John Edser <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
....
{snip]
....

Post by John Edser

Post by Apidium23
So, you're going to spam Richard Dawkins? Remember, he's *the* NUMBER
ONE evolutionary biologist, and YOU'RE NOT.

Dawkins is wrong, period.

Dawkins almost never discusses anything that isn't explained by natural selection.
Dawkins conclusions are very main stream.
The only thing unusual is his approach to explaining natural selection from a gene's eye view
rather than the more common view of the individual. Apparently many people find his way of
explaining natural selection helpful.
If the conclusions are the same, how can one method of reaching these conclusions be wrong
(gene-centric) and another correct (individual-centic)?
William L Hunt

Post by John Edser
BTW, as EOW correctly pointed out, Dawkins has not done any research for many years. All he is today is an over hyped publicist selling incorrect science to the public for money
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher

Post by Apidium23
U
--
Apidium23

[John Edser]

Lipton is referring to Epigenetics (above the gene inheritance). Darwin fortold this in his pangenesis hypothesis. Dawkins & the gene centric establishment are doing their very best to debunk epigenetics because they now realise it is inconsistent to gene centrics. Most epigenetic gene modifications are removed after about 3 generations, but that is enough to make epigenetics a serious embarrassment to gene centrics.

Regards,

John Edser
independent researcher
***@ozemail.com.au
Twitter: @intelligent50


Sent from my iPad

Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Has Richard Dawkins made any comments about Bruce Lipton's work?
I was just thinking that myself. Those two would make a good discussion I think.

[John Edser]

Sent from my iPad

Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server

Post by John Edser
Dawkins is wrong, period.

His atheist crap *might* be wrong, but his old biological works have
merit. I was merely pointing out that his biological work has merit,
while "your" ENCODE crap doesn't have merit.

JE: I repeat: Dawkins "New Atheism" nonsensical refutation of god is in serious epistemological error for the same reason that his oversold "Selfish Geneism" is: not empirically falsifiable leading to hopeless, simplified/oversimplified model misuse. Dawkins is a hypocrite. He has written that falsifiability is required but he refuses to discuss it or implement it.

Regards,
John Edser
independent researcher

--
Apidium23
http://apidium23.wordpress.com/about/

[John Edser]

Sent from my iPad

Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: "Recursive genomewide recombination and sequencing reveals a key

I only have the abstract, I have to wait 6 months to see the paper. But,
I thought it would be of good interest to the newsgroup(s) sbe and sbp.
"Evolutionary innovations often arise from complex genetic and
ecological interactions, which can make it challenging to understand
retrospectively how a novel trait arose. In a long-term experiment,
Escherichia coli gained the ability to use abundant citrate (Cit+) in
the growth medium after ∌31,500 generations of evolution. Exploiting
this previously untapped resource was highly beneficial: later Cit+
variants achieve a much higher population density in this environment.
All Cit+ individuals share a mutation that activates aerobic expression
of the citT citrate transporter, but this mutation confers only an
extremely weak Cit+ phenotype on its own. To determine which of the
other >70 mutations in early Cit+ clones were needed to take full
advantage of citrate, we developed a recursive genomewide recombination
and sequencing method (REGRES) and performed genetic backcrosses to
purge mutations not required for Cit+ from an evolved strain. We
discovered a mutation that increased expression of the dctA
C4-dicarboxylate transporter greatly enhanced the Cit+ phenotype after
it evolved. Surprisingly, strains containing just the citT and dctA
mutations fully use citrate, indicating that earlier mutations thought
to have potentiated the initial evolution of Cit+ are not required for
expression of the refined version of this trait. Instead, this metabolic
innovation may be contingent on a genetic background, and possibly
ecological context, that enabled citT mutants to persist among
competitors long enough to obtain dctA or equivalent mutations that
conferred an overwhelming advantage. More generally, refinement of an
emergent trait from a rudimentary form may be crucial to its
evolutionary success."
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/6/2217
--
Apidium23
http://apidium23.wordpress.com/about/

Larry Moran in his Sandman blog gives a good discussion of this paper (and the 25 year experiment
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/01/on-unpredictability-of-evolution-and.html

The notable inclusion here is epistasis all of which was & remains deleted Hamilton's rb>c.
With epistasis included the rule becomes (r^e)b >c where e=2 minimally and fails as e slightly increases since gene to gene (gene centric relatedness IBD) falls geometrically as e arithmetically increases. There is no justification for Dr Hunt or anybody else to continue to ignore such a basic defect of Hamilton's model, misused to this day as a theory in its own right by Dawkins et al who have no compunction selling it to the hapless public as a "theory"of "Selfish Geneism" making big sums of money for themselves & the University Of Oxford.

The famous sociobiologist EO Wilson has recently debunked Inclusive Fitness much to the consternation of an overly large gene centric industry spinning around rb> c misuse. Hamilton's MODEL is only a non falsifiable THEORM of mathematics not a bona fide falsifiable THEORY of science.

Regards,

John Edser

independent researcher
***@ozemail.com.au

Twitter: @intelligent50

[William L Hunt]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:28:00 -0500 (EST), John Edser <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
....
[snip]
....

Post by John Edser
The famous sociobiologist EO Wilson has recently debunked Inclusive Fitness much to the consternation of an overly large gene centric industry spinning around rb> c misuse. Hamilton's MODEL is only a non falsifiable THEORM of mathematics not a bona fide falsifiable THEORY of science.

Well Wilson didn't provide any logical arguments to debunk Inclusive Fitness but he nows sees a
form of group selection as the explanation of the evolution to eusociality. I expect you don't like
that explanation either.
I very much admire and respect E.O. Wilson but I don't think this sort of analysis is his forte.
Early on he would quote the old argument that "since in hymenoptera daughters share more genes with
sisters than their own daughters, they would prefer to make sisters rather than daughters". This
argument was debunked long ago but maybe, without this argument, he felt the need to find another
explanation for the evolution to eusociality.
I feel the proper way to expain the evolution of eusociality is to give the route from solitary to
subsocial to eusocial with an explanation of the factors involved in the many steps in the route.
And there is more than one route. In the bees and wasps there many species at various points along
the route to complete eusociality.
William L Hunt

Post by John Edser
Regards,
John Edser
independent researcher

[John Edser]

Sent from my iPad

Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
....
{snip]
....

Post by John Edser

Post by Apidium23
So, you're going to spam Richard Dawkins? Remember, he's *the* NUMBER
ONE evolutionary biologist, and YOU'RE NOT.

Dawkins is wrong, period.

Dawkins almost never discusses anything that isn't explained by natural selection.
Dawkins conclusions are very main stream.
The only thing unusual is his approach to explaining natural selection from a gene's eye view
rather than the more common view of the individual. Apparently many people find his way of
explaining natural selection helpful.
If the conclusions are the same, how can one method of reaching these conclusions be wrong
(gene-centric) and another correct (individual-centic)?

JE:- Very simply: their conclusions are nothing like "the same" since organism centric Darwinism 100% excludes the evolution of adult organism fitness altruism as an empirical falsification. OTOH there is not a single falsification of rb>c since it is only circular & therefore non falsifiable. IOW rb>c always remains "true" but only by definition! EO Wilson just starting to see the simple truth of this rather ugly fact.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

Post by John Edser
BTW, as EOW correctly pointed out, Dawkins has not done any research for many years. All he is today is an over hyped publicist selling incorrect science to the public for money
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher

Post by Apidium23
U
--
Apidium23

[Tom Hendricks]

Post by William L Hunt
Dawkins almost never discusses anything that isn't explained by natural selection.
Dawkins conclusions are very main stream.
The only thing unusual is his approach to explaining natural selection from a gene's eye view
rather than the more common view of the individual. Apparently many people find his way of
explaining natural selection helpful.
If the conclusions are the same, how can one method of reaching these conclusions be wrong
(gene-centric) and another correct (individual-centic)?
William L Hunt

Very well put Mr. Hunt. I wonder what Dawkins would say to that. Your comment cuts through a lot to get to the core of the argument.

[Apidium23]

Post by Tom Hendricks

Post by William L Hunt
Dawkins almost never discusses anything that isn't explained by natural selection.
Dawkins conclusions are very main stream.
The only thing unusual is his approach to explaining natural selection from a gene's eye view
rather than the more common view of the individual. Apparently many people find his way of
explaining natural selection helpful.
If the conclusions are the same, how can one method of reaching these conclusions be wrong
(gene-centric) and another correct (individual-centic)?
William L Hunt

Very well put Mr. Hunt. I wonder what Dawkins would say to that. Your comment cuts through a lot to get to the core of the argument.

Indeed! Dawkins' biological work is well cut out for him, anything
except the selfish gene concept, which has no experimental support.

[John Edser]

Sent from my iPad

Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: Gene centric junk is organism centric gold.
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server

http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/38976/title/Drosophila-s-New-Genes/

Daryl, John, Snow or something along those lines, have you ever
considered that the Junk-DNA is not really Junk is bullshit?
[moderator's note: Perhaps you could be more specific about
what it is you're arguing? "bullshit" is a pretty vague
accusation. - JAH]

All right, I'll be more specific. ENCODE Consortium's claim that 80% of
the human genome is not junk is feces flung in the direction of
biochemistry. Graur et al. is a paper I highly recommend. It takes down
http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/20/gbe.evt028.full.pdf+html
--
Apidium23

Thanks. This is the most complete rebuttal of ENCODE that I have seen. Although Larry Moran (on
his Sandwalk blog) gave a good rebuttal when ENCODE first published. I have to mention that Dan
Graur (with Wen-Hsiung Li) is the author of my most well worn textbook, "Fundamentals of Molecular
Evolutiion". I recommend the book to John Edser.
William L Hunt

Edser most likely won't buy the book, nor even check it out at a local
library. The ENCODE is so far stuck up his ass, it's hard to get it out.

The author may like to consider that my argument against poly-centric gene centricity (for mono-centric Darwinism) was presented here before ENCODE was initiated and is around the following basic points:-

1. Hamilton's rb>c is just a non falsifiable maths tautology (a theorem) ie NOT a falsifiable theory of science.
2, To convert rb>c into a valid theory at least one algebraic constant has to be included.
3. rb>c is both a simplified & oversimplified model of falsifiable Darwinian theory.
4. A simplification is defined as: the removal or arbitrary change in value of any theory variable.
5. An oversimplification is defined as: the removal or arbitrary change in value of any theory constant.
6. Any modelling oversimplification is terminal since it alters the (Galilean) falsifiable frame of reference for Darwinian theory.
7. There are many possible examples of simplification in rb>c. Including any of them invalidates Hanilton's Rule. I focus on two: the deletion of all genetic epistasis and the deletion of the number of recipients. Epistasis in which e=2 ie not just the 1 that Hamilton allowed is required to provide minimal biological reality to Hamilton's model. When e is included the rule becomes (r^e)b >c & fails. The variable b must be divided by the number of recipients to remove group selection allowing the recipients to compete amongst themselves as well as against the donor.
Without a group selective b provided by dividing b by the number of recipients the rule fails.
8. Darwinism obviously prohibits naturally selecting for any organism donor who is foolish enough to donate their resources to competitors so lowering the donors total fitness to below that of their competitors, no matter how closely they may be related IBD.
9. Fatally, there is no total fitness in Neo Darwinism but there is in Darwinism.
10. Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF) is defined as: the total number of strictly fertile forms reproduced per parent per population. TDF is routinely but unknowingly employed within the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) to provide zero selection using a minimal TDF of just 2 for every competitor (visualised in Pascal's Triangle). Only a default comparison of all TDF's results in a single, completed selective event.
11. HWE easily illustrates the falsifiability of Darwinism, since if natural selection does occur when all TDF's remain equal in the same population (in the HWE case to a binary fission of 2 per selectee) Darwinism stands falsified.
12. TDF provides a simple, single, falsifiable fitness maximand for mono-centric Darwinism.
13, No equivalent fitness maximand is available for poly-centric Neo Darwinism so it remains unfalsifiable.
14. The Neo Darwinian definition of evolution: "any gene frequency change in a deme" is incorrect since it wrongly combines random gene frequency changes via drift & mutation with non randomly naturally selected gene frequency changes.
15. The Darwinian definition of evolution is therefore "any non random gene frequency change in a deme" which of course, unlike the Neo Darwinian definition, is entirely falsifiable.
16. Only when all TDF are included in rb>c does it become possible to separate c as an altruistic donation from c as a contradictory, mutually but not necessarily equal, beneficial investment in which all TDF's increase.
17. Unequal mutualism remains hopelessly confused with fitness altruism within rb>c without at least the TDF of the donor included. Fitness altruism can only be proven via the TDF of the donor remaining lowered via Hamilton's subtraction of c thereby refuting the Darwinian, maximand status of the actors TDF (variable c must be deducted from the donors TDF setting a previously missing ceiling to c).

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher
***@ozemail.com.au

[Tom Hendricks]

Post by William L Hunt
I very much admire and respect E.O. Wilson but I don't think this sort of analysis is his forte.
Early on he would quote the old argument that "since in hymenoptera daughters share more genes with
sisters than their own daughters, they would prefer to make sisters rather than daughters". This
argument was debunked long ago but maybe, without this argument, he felt the need to find another
explanation for the evolution to eusociality.

What was the argument that debunked that example? I think I've thought the same as he. This is the example I used:
Burning building, should one twin try to save the other , or save her daughter. Her sister shares all her genes, her daughter only half.

[William L Hunt]

Post by Tom Hendricks

Post by William L Hunt
I very much admire and respect E.O. Wilson but I don't think this sort of analysis is his forte.
Early on he would quote the old argument that "since in hymenoptera daughters share more genes with
sisters than their own daughters, they would prefer to make sisters rather than daughters". This
argument was debunked long ago but maybe, without this argument, he felt the need to find another
explanation for the evolution to eusociality.

What was the argument that debunked that example?

In a nutshell, the argument is that only fertile offspring count in the calculation and when
sisters help their mother make more offspring it is always both females (r=3/4) and males (r=1/4)
she produces. But the average genes they share is then 1/2, the same as in X Y diploids.

Post by Tom Hendricks
Burning building, should one twin try to save the other , or save her daughter. Her sister shares all her genes, her daughter only half.

I would say it would be the same as asking when should a mother save herself or her daughter. If
the mother is no longer able to bear more children she might sacrifice herself. But in animals when
faced with a predator that will be able kill either the mother or her child, the mother will flee
(losing the child) to bear more children at a later time.
William L Hunt

[John Edser]

Sent from my iPad

Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
....
[snip]
....

Post by John Edser
The famous sociobiologist EO Wilson has recently debunked Inclusive Fitness much to the consternation of an overly large gene centric industry spinning around rb> c misuse. Hamilton's MODEL is only a non falsifiable THEORM of mathematics not a bona fide falsifiable THEORY of science.

Well Wilson didn't provide any logical arguments to debunk Inclusive Fitness but he nows sees a
form of group selection as the explanation of the evolution to eusociality. I expect you don't like
that explanation either.

JE:-
Wilson correctly pointed out that regression analysis curiously assumes what is wanted and then fits up everything to suit; is typically "ad hoc" & NOT permissible.

I have no idea how Wilson attempts to explain eusociality; it is an entirely different matter to the validity of rb>c as evolutionary theory which is the subject under discussion. Group selection has traditionally been a dogs breakfast of utter confusion between selectee & selector.

I very much admire and respect E.O. Wilson but I don't think this sort of analysis is his forte.
Early on he would quote the old argument that "since in hymenoptera daughters share more genes with
sisters than their own daughters, they would prefer to make sisters rather than daughters".

JE:-
None of this controversy is significant because arguments on both sides have been nullified by the observation of normally diploid eusocial Isoptera. The continual focus on haplodiploid Hymenoptera represents extraordinary bias by Hamilton et al.

This
argument was debunked long ago but maybe, without this argument, he felt the need to find another
explanation for the evolution to eusociality.
I feel the proper way to expain the evolution of eusociality is to give the route from solitary to
subsocial to eusocial with an explanation of the factors involved in the many steps in the route.
And there is more than one route. In the bees and wasps there many species at various points along
the route to complete eusociality.

JE:-
I agree that evolution from solitary to eusocial provides the key. What I find extraordinary in this forever ongoing controversy is that eusocialised forms are STERILE. This means they cannot possibly pass on any of their genes even if they wanted to! This being the case, they have a zero fitness, no matter how you define fitness. So, under NON gene centric ie organism mono-centric Darwinism, ordinary natural selection easily explains why a parent has evolved to keep some of their own offspring sterile via parental controlling pheromones. No IBD gene centric relatedness is required. Sterile young may be much more useful to their parents fitness employed as slave like modular body extensions than as reproductives since huge numbers of ferule reproductives are lost during sexual reproduction.

I have included a point by point summary of my general position so that there can be no confusion:

1. Hamilton's rb>c is just a non falsifiable maths tautology (a theorem) ie NOT a falsifiable theory of science.
2, To convert rb>c into a valid theory at least one algebraic constant has to be included.
3. The theorem rb>c is both a simplified & oversimplified model of falsifiable Darwinian theory.
4. A simplification is defined as: the removal or arbitrary change in value of any theory variable.
5. An oversimplification is defined as: the removal or arbitrary change in value of any theory constant.
6. Any modelling oversimplification is terminal since it alters the (Galilean) falsifiable frame of reference for all of Darwinian theory.
7. There are many possible examples of simplification in rb>c. Including any of them invalidates Hanilton's Rule. I focus on two: the deletion of all genetic epistasis and the deletion of the number of recipients. Epistasis in which e=2 ie not just the 1 that Hamilton allowed is required to provide minimal biological reality to Hamilton's model. When e is included the rule becomes (r^e)b >c & fails. The variable b must be divided by the number of recipients to remove group selection allowing the recipients to compete amongst themselves as well as against the donor.
Without a group selective b which is only removed by dividing b by the number of recipients the rule fails.
8. Darwinism obviously prohibits naturally selecting for any organism donor who is foolish enough to donate their resources to competitors so lowering the donors total fitness to below that of their competitors, no matter how closely they may be related IBD.
9. Fatally, there is no total fitness in Neo Darwinism but there is in Darwinism.
10. Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF) is defined as: the total number of strictly fertile forms reproduced per parent per population. TDF is routinely but unknowingly employed within the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) to provide zero selection using a minimal TDF of just 2 for every competitor (visualised in Pascal's Triangle). Only a default comparison of all TDF's results in a single, completed selective event.
11. HWE easily illustrates the falsifiability of Darwinism, since if natural selection does occur when all TDF's remain equal in the same population (in the HWE case to a binary fission of 2 per selectee) Darwinism stands falsified.
12. TDF provides a simple, single, falsifiable fitness maximand for mono-centric Darwinism.
13, No equivalent fitness maximand is available for poly-centric Neo Darwinism so it remains unfalsifiable.
14. The Neo Darwinian definition of evolution: "any gene frequency change in a deme" is incorrect since it wrongly combines random gene frequency changes via drift & mutation with non randomly naturally selected gene frequency changes.
15. The Darwinian definition of evolution is therefore "any non random gene frequency change in a deme" which of course, unlike the Neo Darwinian definition, is entirely falsifiable.
16. Only when all TDF are included in rb>c does it become possible to separate c as an altruistic donation from c as a contradictory, mutually but not necessarily equal, beneficial investment in which all TDF's increase.
17. Unequal mutualism remains hopelessly confused with fitness altruism within rb>c without at least the TDF of the donor included. Fitness altruism can only be proven via the TDF of the donor remaining lowered via Hamilton's subtraction of c thereby refuting the Darwinian, maximand status of the actors TDF (variable c must be deducted from the donors TDF setting a previously missing ceiling to c).

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher
***@ozemail.com.au

[John Edser]

Sent from my iPad

Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list

Post by Tom Hendricks

Post by William L Hunt
I very much admire and respect E.O. Wilson but I don't think this sort of analysis is his forte.
Early on he would quote the old argument that "since in hymenoptera daughters share more genes with
sisters than their own daughters, they would prefer to make sisters rather than daughters". This
argument was debunked long ago but maybe, without this argument, he felt the need to find another
explanation for the evolution to eusociality.

What was the argument that debunked that example?

In a nutshell, the argument is that only fertile offspring count in the calculation and when
sisters help their mother make more offspring it is always both females (r=3/4) and males (r=1/4)
she produces. But the average genes they share is then 1/2, the same as in X Y diploids.

JE:-
This is the crux of this misunderstood matter. Hamilton's rb>c does NOT separate FERTILE adults who can possibly pass on any of their genes into the next adult organism generation of them, from INFERTILE immatures who have no possibility of doing so. This omission has caused half a century of mass confusion. Who would have thought that such a basic biological fact would have remained ignored by so many for so long! The sterility of eusocials renders gene to gene (IBD) relatedness to just an enormous red herring. Nature does not care a less about the IBD pedigree of Hamilton's gene, all Mother Nature cares about is the net effect each gene has on the Darwinian total fitness of naturally competing adults.

Post by Tom Hendricks
Burning building, should one twin try to save the other , or save her daughter. Her sister shares all her genes, her daughter only half.

I would say it would be the same as asking when should a mother save herself or her daughter. If
the mother is no longer able to bear more children she might sacrifice herself. But in animals when
faced with a predator that will be able kill either the mother or her child, the mother will fle
(losing the child) to bear more children at a later time

JE:-

Yes, organism fertility has always been the key, so demonstrating that Hamilton's IBD relatedness has nothing to do with anything as any sort of gene centric causal mechanism. Gene replication is maximised as just an effect (not a cause!) of maximal or adult organism reproduction which requires epistasis etc and is destroyed by any notion of adult fitness altruism. Dawkins has his biological causation in reverse; it isn't adult organism fitness altruism
it is unequal adult fitness mutualism that moves Hamilton's gene.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher
***@ozemail.com.au

Twitter: @intelligent50

[Tom Hendricks]

Post by William L Hunt

Post by Tom Hendricks
What was the argument that debunked that example?

In a nutshell, the argument is that only fertile offspring count in the calculation and when
sisters help their mother make more offspring it is always both females (r=3/4) and males (r=1/4)
she produces. But the average genes they share is then 1/2, the same as in X Y diploids.

Post by Tom Hendricks
Burning building, should one twin try to save the other , or save her daughter. Her sister shares all her genes, her daughter only half.

I would say it would be the same as asking when should a mother save herself or her daughter. If
the mother is no longer able to bear more children she might sacrifice herself. But in animals when
faced with a predator that will be able kill either the mother or her child, the mother will flee
(losing the child) to bear more children at a later time.
William L Hunt

To find more on Hamilton's Rule, I looked it up on wikipedia and found this quote that seemed to fit our discussion.

Much of the discussion relates to the evolution of eusociality in insects of the order Hymenoptera (ants, bees and wasps) based on their unusual haplodiploid sex-determination system. This system means that females are more closely related to their sisters than to their own (potential) offspring. Thus, Hamilton reasoned, a "costly action" would be better spent in helping to raise their sisters, rather than reproducing themselves.

[William L Hunt]

Post by Tom Hendricks

Post by William L Hunt

Post by Tom Hendricks
What was the argument that debunked that example?

In a nutshell, the argument is that only fertile offspring count in the calculation and when
sisters help their mother make more offspring it is always both females (r=3/4) and males (r=1/4)
she produces. But the average genes they share is then 1/2, the same as in X Y diploids.

Post by Tom Hendricks
Burning building, should one twin try to save the other , or save her daughter. Her sister shares all her genes, her daughter only half.

I would say it would be the same as asking when should a mother save herself or her daughter. If
the mother is no longer able to bear more children she might sacrifice herself. But in animals when
faced with a predator that will be able kill either the mother or her child, the mother will flee
(losing the child) to bear more children at a later time.
William L Hunt

To find more on Hamilton's Rule, I looked it up on wikipedia and found this quote that seemed to fit our discussion.
Much of the discussion relates to the evolution of eusociality in insects of the order Hymenoptera (ants, bees and wasps) based on their unusual haplodiploid sex-determination system. This system means that females are more closely related to their sisters than to their own (potential) offspring. Thus, Hamilton reasoned, a "costly action" would be better spent in helping to raise their sisters, rather than reproducing themselves.

Yes, this is exactly the early poorly reasoned argument of Hamilton and E. O. Wilson that has been
debunked with more careful reasoning.
William L Hunt

[John Edser]

Sent from my iPad

Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list

Post by William L Hunt

Post by Tom Hendricks
What was the argument that debunked that example?

In a nutshell, the argument is that only fertile offspring count in the calculation and when
sisters help their mother make more offspring it is always both females (r=3/4) and males (r=1/4)
she produces. But the average genes they share is then 1/2, the same as in X Y diploids.

Post by Tom Hendricks
Burning building, should one twin try to save the other , or save her daughter. Her sister shares all her genes, her daughter only half.

I would say it would be the same as asking when should a mother save herself or her daughter. If
the mother is no longer able to bear more children she might sacrifice herself. But in animals when
faced with a predator that will be able kill either the mother or her child, the mother will flee
(losing the child) to bear more children at a later time.
William L Hunt

To find more on Hamilton's Rule, I looked it up on wikipedia and found this quote that seemed to fit our discussion.
Much of the discussion relates to the evolution of eusociality in insects of the order Hymenoptera (ants, bees and wasps) based on their unusual haplodiploid sex-determination system. This system means that females are more closely related to their sisters than to their own (potential) offspring. Thus, Hamilton reasoned, a "costly action" would be better spent in helping to raise their sisters, rather than reproducing themselves.

JE:
Just a small proportion of the eusocial biomass happens to be haplodiploid, the vast majority are normally diploid eg diploid Isoptera (ants represent a huge biomass) & the mammals (naked mole rats). Gene centrics clings to the Hymenoptera straw because they think this represents a clear verification of selfish geneism when it doesn't. As Dr Hunt pointed out, at the Darwinian adult ie fertile organism level of selection the haplodiploid skewing that gene centrics so loves simply & predictably averages out to a normal 50/50 removing anything extraordinary about the Hymenoptera.

Dr Hunt recently posted a model that he thinks verifies gene centric selfish geneism when it does no such thing. In my reply I pointed out that scenario 2 in the model deleted the Darwinian mono-centric level by definition since the model allowed adult forms to choose to remain sterile (this never happens in nature). Given such an unreal scenario, of course Hamilton's Rule is verified since selection has to operate somewhere & only the gene level is left!

Hamilton's Rule provides what can be called promiscuous verifications ie is always verified only because it is only an empty tautology in which cause & effect freely reverses.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

***@ozemail.com.au

Twitter: @intelligent50

[John Edser]

Sent from my iPad

Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list

Post by Tom Hendricks

Post by William L Hunt

Post by Tom Hendricks
What was the argument that debunked that example?

In a nutshell, the argument is that only fertile offspring count in the calculation and when
sisters help their mother make more offspring it is always both females (r=3/4) and males (r=1/4)
she produces. But the average genes they share is then 1/2, the same as in X Y diploids.

Post by Tom Hendricks
Burning building, should one twin try to save the other , or save her daughter. Her sister shares all her genes, her daughter only half.

I would say it would be the same as asking when should a mother save herself or her daughter. If
the mother is no longer able to bear more children she might sacrifice herself. But in animals when
faced with a predator that will be able kill either the mother or her child, the mother will flee
(losing the child) to bear more children at a later time.
William L Hunt

To find more on Hamilton's Rule, I looked it up on wikipedia and found this quote that seemed to fit our discussion.
Much of the discussion relates to the evolution of eusociality in insects of the order Hymenoptera (ants, bees and wasps) based on their unusual haplodiploid sex-determination system. This system means that females are more closely related to their sisters than to their own (potential) offspring. Thus, Hamilton reasoned, a "costly action" would be better spent in helping to raise their sisters, rather than reproducing themselves.

Yes, this is exactly the early poorly reasoned argument of Hamilton and E. O. Wilson that has been
debunked with more careful reasoning.

JE:-
Ironically, debunking of Wilson via focussing entirely on the mean relatedness of adult FERTILE forms as Darwinism does but Hamilton does NOT (only adults can possibly pass on any of their genes!) debunks Hamilton's prized explanation of the haplodiploid Hymenoptera:-


WH:-
"I very much admire and respect E.O. Wilson but I don't think this sort of analysis is his forte.Early on he would quote the old argument that "since in hymenoptera daughters share more genes with sisters than their own daughters, they would prefer to make sisters rather than daughters". This argument was debunked long ago but maybe, without this argument, he felt the need to find another explanation for the evolution to eusociality. In a nutshell, the argument is that only fertile offspring count in the calculation and when sisters help their mother make more offspring it is always both females (r=3/4) and males (r=1/4) she produces. But the average genes they share is then 1/2, the same as in X Y diploids."

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

***@ozemail.com.au.

twitter: @intelligent50

[John Edser]

Sent from my iPad

Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: A simple model/simulation for John Edser

--Apple-Mail-E07A2425-69C5-41CE-ACCD-869BD1B960EE
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sent from my iPad

=20
Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: A simple model/simulation for John Edser

....
[Snip all but the last scenario]
....

WLH-
Similiar to the earlier
scenarios this involves species of subsocial temperate zone bees that hibenate
through the winter between the two seasons of their lives.
The females mate with a single male. The difference from previous scenarios is
that all females mate and all females are fertile in these species.
The daughters still forage to help provision the larvae of their mother.
All the evidence shows that the daughters are clearly deciding for
themselves when, late in their first season, they will stop foraging
and hibernate. Some daughters leave earlier and some later, not at all
as if the mother was making this decision based on what she thinks is the best
time for her daughters to hibernate. The decision to hibernate is made far
from the nest and the mother. At the end of a day of foraging a daughter will
simply not return to the nest but instead dig a hole and go into hibernation
There is a risk in delaying hibernation too long for if winter comes suddenly
before the daughters can fatten up sufficiently they may not survive the
period of hibernation. This risk is important in understanding the
behavior described below.
Now for the peculiar thing that is observed in these species in nature.
If, late in the season, the helping daughters see that their mother is laying
eggs that are producing males they leave to hibernate much earlier than when
the mother is laying eggs that produce females (fertile since all females are)
This is also exactly what is seen in computer simulations of this model.
And of course, it is exactly what is predicted if daughters are maximizing
their Inclusive Fitness. They accept less risk to help produce brothers related
by 1/2 and more risk to help produce fertile sisters related by 3/4.

JE:- You neglected to say if their reproductive strategy is just a one off or
can be repeated.

It occurs in every colony in every generation, and is clearly a behavior that would be subject to
natural selection.

JE:-

Sorry, you did not answer my question so I could not formulate a reply. Do the parents only breed once & then die or do they go on to reproduce more than just the once before they die? Also, my understanding is that sisters are IBD related to brothers in this case 1/4 not 1/2?

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher
***@ozemail.com.au

twitter @intelligent50

[William L Hunt]

Post by John Edser
Sent from my iPad

Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: A simple model/simulation for John Edser

--Apple-Mail-E07A2425-69C5-41CE-ACCD-869BD1B960EE
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sent from my iPad

=20
Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: A simple model/simulation for John Edser

....
[Snip all but the last scenario]
....

WLH-
Similiar to the earlier
scenarios this involves species of subsocial temperate zone bees that hibenate
through the winter between the two seasons of their lives.
The females mate with a single male. The difference from previous scenarios is
that all females mate and all females are fertile in these species.
The daughters still forage to help provision the larvae of their mother.
All the evidence shows that the daughters are clearly deciding for
themselves when, late in their first season, they will stop foraging
and hibernate. Some daughters leave earlier and some later, not at all
as if the mother was making this decision based on what she thinks is the best
time for her daughters to hibernate. The decision to hibernate is made far
from the nest and the mother. At the end of a day of foraging a daughter will
simply not return to the nest but instead dig a hole and go into hibernation
There is a risk in delaying hibernation too long for if winter comes suddenly
before the daughters can fatten up sufficiently they may not survive the
period of hibernation. This risk is important in understanding the
behavior described below.
Now for the peculiar thing that is observed in these species in nature.
If, late in the season, the helping daughters see that their mother is laying
eggs that are producing males they leave to hibernate much earlier than when
the mother is laying eggs that produce females (fertile since all females are)
This is also exactly what is seen in computer simulations of this model.
And of course, it is exactly what is predicted if daughters are maximizing
their Inclusive Fitness. They accept less risk to help produce brothers related
by 1/2 and more risk to help produce fertile sisters related by 3/4.

JE:- You neglected to say if their reproductive strategy is just a one off or
can be repeated.

It occurs in every colony in every generation, and is clearly a behavior that would be subject to
natural selection.

JE:-
Sorry, you did not answer my question so I could not formulate a reply. Do the parents only breed once & then die or do they go on to reproduce more than just the once before they die?

The females mate once in the first season but do not breed in that season. They hibernate one time
through the first winter. In the second season they produce offspring throughout the season, but
when winter comes they die.

Post by John Edser
Also, my understanding is that sisters are IBD related to brothers in this case 1/4 not 1/2?

My error. Yes it should be 1/4.
William L Hunt

Post by John Edser
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher

[John Edser]

Sent from my iPad

Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list

Post by John Edser
Sent from my iPad

Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: A simple model/simulation for John Edser

--Apple-Mail-E07A2425-69C5-41CE-ACCD-869BD1B960EE
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sent from my iPad

=20
Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: A simple model/simulation for John Edser

....
[Snip all but the last scenario]
....

WLH-
Similiar to the earlier
scenarios this involves species of subsocial temperate zone bees that hibenate
through the winter between the two seasons of their lives.
The females mate with a single male. The difference from previous scenarios is
that all females mate and all females are fertile in these species.
The daughters still forage to help provision the larvae of their mother.
All the evidence shows that the daughters are clearly deciding for
themselves when, late in their first season, they will stop foraging
and hibernate. Some daughters leave earlier and some later, not at all
as if the mother was making this decision based on what she thinks is the best
time for her daughters to hibernate. The decision to hibernate is made far
from the nest and the mother. At the end of a day of foraging a daughter will
simply not return to the nest but instead dig a hole and go into hibernation
There is a risk in delaying hibernation too long for if winter comes suddenly
before the daughters can fatten up sufficiently they may not survive the
period of hibernation. This risk is important in understanding the
behavior described below.
Now for the peculiar thing that is observed in these species in nature.
If, late in the season, the helping daughters see that their mother is laying
eggs that are producing males they leave to hibernate much earlier than when
the mother is laying eggs that produce females (fertile since all females are)
This is also exactly what is seen in computer simulations of this model.
And of course, it is exactly what is predicted if daughters are maximizing
their Inclusive Fitness. They accept less risk to help produce brothers related
by 1/2 and more risk to help produce fertile sisters related by 3/4.

JE:- You neglected to say if their reproductive strategy is just a one off or
can be repeated.

It occurs in every colony in every generation, and is clearly a behavior that would be subject to
natural selection.

JE:-
Sorry, you did not answer my question so I could not formulate a reply. Do the parents only breed once & then die or do they go on to reproduce more than just the once before they die?

The females mate once in the first season but do not breed in that season. They hibernate one time
through the first winter. In the second season they produce offspring throughout the season, but
when winter comes they die.

Post by John Edser
Also, my understanding is that sisters are IBD related to brothers in this case 1/4 not 1/2?

My error. Yes it should be 1/4.

JE:-
You answered this yourself in your critique EO Wilson:-
"In a nutshell, the argument is that only fertile offspring count in the calculation and when
sisters help their mother make more offspring it is always both females (r=3/4) and males (r=1/4)
she produces. But the average genes they share is then 1/2, the same as in X Y diploids."

Unlike Inclusive Fitness that incorrectly allocates a fitness to sterile immature forms that cannot possibly pass on any of their genes (so they have a zero fitness), Darwinism correctly allocates fitness to fertile adult forms where the genes shared IBD are 1/2 removing inclusive fitness from the equation. This means that the observed behaviour correlation with inclusive must have another cause.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

***@ozemsil.com.au

twitter: @intelligent50

[William L Hunt]

Post by John Edser
Sent from my iPad

Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list

Post by John Edser
Sent from my iPad

Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: A simple model/simulation for John Edser

--Apple-Mail-E07A2425-69C5-41CE-ACCD-869BD1B960EE
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sent from my iPad

=20
Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: A simple model/simulation for John Edser

....
[Snip all but the last scenario]
....

WLH-
Similiar to the earlier
scenarios this involves species of subsocial temperate zone bees that hibenate
through the winter between the two seasons of their lives.
The females mate with a single male. The difference from previous scenarios is
that all females mate and all females are fertile in these species.
The daughters still forage to help provision the larvae of their mother.
All the evidence shows that the daughters are clearly deciding for
themselves when, late in their first season, they will stop foraging
and hibernate. Some daughters leave earlier and some later, not at all
as if the mother was making this decision based on what she thinks is the best
time for her daughters to hibernate. The decision to hibernate is made far
from the nest and the mother. At the end of a day of foraging a daughter will
simply not return to the nest but instead dig a hole and go into hibernation
There is a risk in delaying hibernation too long for if winter comes suddenly
before the daughters can fatten up sufficiently they may not survive the
period of hibernation. This risk is important in understanding the
behavior described below.
Now for the peculiar thing that is observed in these species in nature.
If, late in the season, the helping daughters see that their mother is laying
eggs that are producing males they leave to hibernate much earlier than when
the mother is laying eggs that produce females (fertile since all females are)
This is also exactly what is seen in computer simulations of this model.
And of course, it is exactly what is predicted if daughters are maximizing
their Inclusive Fitness. They accept less risk to help produce brothers related
by 1/2 and more risk to help produce fertile sisters related by 3/4.

JE:- You neglected to say if their reproductive strategy is just a one off or
can be repeated.

It occurs in every colony in every generation, and is clearly a behavior that would be subject to
natural selection.

JE:-
Sorry, you did not answer my question so I could not formulate a reply. Do the parents only breed once & then die or do they go on to reproduce more than just the once before they die?

The females mate once in the first season but do not breed in that season. They hibernate one time
through the first winter. In the second season they produce offspring throughout the season, but
when winter comes they die.

Post by John Edser
Also, my understanding is that sisters are IBD related to brothers in this case 1/4 not 1/2?

My error. Yes it should be 1/4.

JE:-
You answered this yourself in your critique EO Wilson:-
"In a nutshell, the argument is that only fertile offspring count in the calculation and when
sisters help their mother make more offspring it is always both females (r=3/4) and males (r=1/4)
she produces. But the average genes they share is then 1/2, the same as in X Y diploids."
Unlike Inclusive Fitness that incorrectly allocates a fitness to sterile immature forms that cannot possibly pass on any of their genes (so they have a zero fitness), Darwinism correctly allocates fitness to fertile adult forms where the genes shared IBD are 1/2 removing inclusive fitness from the equation.

This doesn't remove Inclusive Fitness from the equation. Did you already forget what this last
scenario from nature is? To repeat, if near the end of the season daughters are helping to produce
males (IBD 1/4), they accept less risk and hibernate earlier, if they are helping to produce females
(IBD 3/4) they accept more risk. This is exactly as predicted by Inclusive Fitness. It doesn't
matter that over the course of the season equal numbers of females and males are produced. It only
matters what sex the mother is producing near the end of the season when and only when there is a
risk in not leaving and hibernating.

Post by John Edser
This means that the observed behaviour correlation with inclusive must have another cause.

This behavior is exactly as predicted by Inclusive Fitness. Do you really not see this?
And what is your best explanation for this behavior?
William L Hunt

Post by John Edser
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher