Re: Fw: Edward O. Wilson's "bombshell" on the reality of group
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:37:36 -0400 (EDT)
William Morse <wdmorse@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <e5kkbl$11vr$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- RKS has covered the main points
pretty well. The only one he leaves out is Wilson's differentiation
between the unit of selection - which he says is the gene - and the
target of selection, which he says is usually the individual but can be
the group in some instances.
JE:-
Because of the revised central dogma, selection can only operate on
heritable phenotypes and NOT the genotypes which code for them. This is due
to the existence of a 100% NON reversible relationship between DNA/RNA and
the proteins that they code for. Proteins cannot code for DNA/RNA
prohibiting any reversible Lamarckian form of inheritance. This makes the
genotype invisible to selection forcing it to only select the phenotype.
Today's view that selection can operate on the genotype only constitutes a
misused gene centric oversimplified model of fertile organism centric
Darwinism. Within empirically based Darwinism the genome of one fertile form
codes for one TDF (total Darwinian fitness defined as the total number of
fertile adult forms reproduced per adult per population). TDF represents the
only refutable fitness that evolutionary theory has. Single genes can only
code for polypeptides. More than one gene is required to code for one
protein because almost all proteins are composed of more than one
polypeptide. This places epistatic (non additive) gene coding at the very
forefront of SYNTHETIC genetics and not non epistatic (additive) gene
coding. However, it is only the latter which continues to dominate
simplified/oversimplified gene centric population genetics models. Only C.
H. Waddington's entirely ignored "Post-Neo Darwinistic model" actually
allocates a selective coefficient to all the hidden epistatic genes which
code for any particular phenotype allowing a minimally organism centric
population genetics model to actually exist.
William Hunt and Wirt Atmar have previously argued that haplodiploidy and
kin selection are not the only story in the social insects, and it
appears that Wilson now agrees.
JE:-
This has been known for over half a century. The inclusive fitness argument
that haplodiploidy only verifies Hamilton has always been untrue. I have
presented the arguments as to why this is the case within sbe for about 5
years now and remain happy to debate any of them here. Against all reason
the massive bias for Hamilton's argument continues.
Unfortunately the article does not go
into detail on the type of model Wilson is using to arrive at group
selection.
JE:-
The only model which works is the Darwinian monocentric fertile organism
level model employing and not excluding, Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF) as
the one and only refutable maximand fitness that actually exists within
nature
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Class based societies and inbreeding?
- Next by Date: Re: Fw: Edward O. Wilson's "bombshell" on the reality of group selection
- Previous by thread: RE: Fw: Edward O. Wilson's "bombshell" on the reality of group
- Next by thread: Re: Fw: Edward O. Wilson's "bombshell" on the reality of group
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
