Re: The uncorrected simplifications/oversimplifications of


name_and_address_supplied@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

<snip>

> HR is general enough to cover any social action. And it tells us the
> direction of selection. We use this, along with Hamilton's hypothesis,
> to see what we predict organisms to be doing. We empirically test to
> see if this is the case.

I think your comments here indicate that your thinking is so vague
that you don't really know why you think what you think. Everybody
agrees that lifeforms maximize their inclusive fitness. HR was
proposed as a way of explaining the underlying mechanics of this
observation. As John indicates, it's plainly tautological to suggest
that the observation that lifeforms maximize their inclusive fitness
verifies HR.

<snip>

> The fig wasps might be doing something different from the prediciton.
> There is no reason why they should not, except that HR suggests that
> selection will favour them to obey the prediction. I'm failing to see
> why this doesn't count as a valid test of kin selection theory.

> Please explain why, if HR is wrong, the fig wasps appear to have been
> taken in by it. And not just the fig wasps. HR allows exceptionally
> well-verified predictions of nature. As I have repeatedly said, isn't
> this the ultimate test of theory?

No. It's not. The Ptolemaic theory of celestial motion does
a good job of predicting the location of many planets and
stars. This fact doesn't erase the fact that its underlying
assumptions have been disproven.

<snip>

> As I've said, we have the fig wasps on our side. Our rule is not wrong.
> It is empirically supported.

Empirically supported? Does the fact that 15th century explorers
employed ptolemaic celestial motion to navigate the seas serve as
empirical support for it's underlying assumptions? (Please make a
special effort to not evade this question.)

Jim


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Maybe Safari 4 actually is for Windows
    ... Back in The Good Old Days, classic Mac OS had the close box on the left, and the other stuff on the right- well separated. ... That appears right next to the selection, ... for Google search results pages is just that there just isn't anything ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: "Random evolution"
    ... One of them has two horns and the other has only ... all obvious that you can attirbute it to selection. ... baldness is a spandrel. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: what is required for evolution to occur
    ... selection is no more intelligent than a sieve. ... even jargon) to express thoughts in those contexts. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: what is required for evolution to occur
    ... selection is no more intelligent than a sieve. ... Why can't I say that a sieve chooses? ... even jargon) to express thoughts in those contexts. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More questions for Sean Pitman.
    ... collective intelligence of all wasps acting in concert. ... <snip wasp behaviour> ... Are you sure it was me that said insect colonies are intelligent? ...
    (talk.origins)