Re: "Relative fitness" and other evolution pertaining

From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 07/15/04 

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:30:39 +0000 (UTC)

 "Peter F." <effectivespamblock@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > JE:-
> > ...It remains hopeless
> > to only suggest that light has a maximal
> > velocity within a vacuum if you do not even
> > wish to know what that maximal velocity is!
> > Likewise, it is hopeless suggesting that
> > Darwinian biological selectees maximally
> > reproduce themselves when you do not wish
> > to know what a Darwinian selectee actually
> > is.

> PF:-
> Similar to determining the speed of light >< in a vacuum
> >< because knowing this was relevant and important to
> proving and generating psychological-political support
> for a potentially practically useful theory of fundamental
> physical aspects of What Is going on
> >< in physics..

JE:-
[I took the liberty of snipping Peter's asides
as indicated by >< so what was written made
more sense to me]

YES, defining in a NON ambiguous and
TESTABLE way what one Darwinian selectee
is remains essential to any rational
evolutionary theory.

> PF:-
> one has to make an
> optimal CHOICE
> of selectee in any attempt to focus people's thinking, and muster their
> trust and eventual political support for a useful Evolutionary
> Psychology/neuropsychology Type insight into thus humanly relevant aspects
> of What Is going on.

JE:-
If you substitute a false Darwinian selectee
for the testably true one just to obtain
things like "political support" then you
destroy the science, utterly and completely.

>snip<

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au