Re: Darwin's Paradox
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:58:22 -0500 (EST)
"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
JE:-
No. ... It was Wallace and not Darwin who firstly opened the
group selective can of worms. Darwin toyed with the idea but did not
incorporate it within his _theory_ of evolution via natural selection.
Clearly the work 'race' in Darwin's title did not mean exactly what
the word means today.
JE:-
It was just a category. Each category does not have to be another level of
selection.
But what did it mean? If it meant 'population'
or 'deme', then it definitely suggests group selection.
JE:-
Not necessarily. We talk about group categories all of the time. If you have
a dog and I have a dog and we are talking about the group of dogs that they
both hang out with, this does not mean we are implying that this group of
dogs has to represent another level of selection. Most group categories
simply imply interdependence and NOT dependence i.e. the category "one
group" represents a way to discuss the relationships that independent
entities may have. What I find really annoying is that nobody here (except
my self) will use the following common English terms:
1) Dependence: One entity that cannot function without at least one other.
Mathematical Model: nested sets. Definitive evolutionary theory
characteristic: non additive in fitness to at least one other set. Best
description: the inner nested set remains altruistic to the outer nested set
so the outer nested set has to be selfish relative to the inner nested set.
One nested set has at least two _contradictory_ formations even if the
number of the most inner set elements remains the same in either case. One
set of nested sets, i.e. one set of Russian Dolls represents just one NON
nested set.
2) Independence: An entity that can exist entirely on its own. Mathematical
model: just one single set. Definitive evolutionary theory characteristic:
additive in fitness to any other set within one population. Best
description: separate.
3) Interdependence: A group of independent entities. Mathematical Model:
intersecting sets. Definitive evolutionary theory characteristic: additive
in fitness where the mean of the group can be validly employed to say
something about each averaged set but cannot be used to replace the fitness
result of any set so averaged. Best description: each set is fitness
mutualised to every other within one population.
These three distinctions hold EMPIRICALLY no matter how you define fitness.
It appears to me that gene centric evolutionary theorists do their very best
to avoid making any of these distinctions allowing evolutionary theory to
become unintelligible to the rational mind.
But I think
that it means what is today usually called a 'type'. And that suggests
that Darwin, in his title at least, was primarily thinking about
individual
selection, though he was more willing than John seems to be to average
the effects of selection over many individuals.
JE:-
You misunderstand my position. I have no problem employing fitness averages
as long as they are not used as just another excuse to provide an invalid
group selective model, i.e. a model that is allowed to contest and then
replace the theory it was simplified/oversimplified from. At all times
within the sciences each and every contesting parent theory remains INTACT.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Darwin's Paradox
- Next by Date: Re: Most Important Unsolved Problems?
- Previous by thread: Re: Darwin's Paradox
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
