Re: Fw: Edward O. Wilson's "bombshell" on the reality of group
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:49:20 -0400 (EDT)
Anthony Campbell ac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
...According to Ullica Segerstale in
"Richard Dawkins: How a scientist changed the way we think", edited by
Alan Green and Mark Ridley, 2006, this has been Wilson's position from
the time he published "Sociobiology" in 1975.
"... in his book Wilson is *not* promoting a move away from
1960s 'good for the species' group selection in favor of
selectionist thinking: he is, if anything, doing the reverse!"
Segerstale goes on to say that Wilson attaches not very much importance
to George Williams (because he is not sufficiently group selectionist),
to Robert Trivers, or to John Maynard Smith. All these authors are
cited prominently by Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene", publshed shortly
after "Sociobiology".
Segerstale's essay is worth reading for anyone interested in the
differences between Wilson's and Dawkins's views.
JE:-
The failure to adequately define what group selection is AND IS NOT, i.e.
how it can be EMPIRICALLY verified OR refuted (not just non verified) after
Wallace first proposed the idea (Darwin was always non biased demonstrating
an open mind so he discussed Wallace's idea in writing and did not attempt
to just evade it but he never incorporated group selection into his proposed
theory of evolution by natural selection) has ended up over the years to be
a comedy of errors. Group selection fails because it never existed in the
first place. What has been 100% confused with group selection is what can
only be termed "additive individual selection". If the fitness of one group
is just the simple sum of the fitness of each member of that group then
individual selection is operating and not group selection no matter how you
define fitness. This can be illustrated using set theory where it can be
demonstrated to high school students that addition is not the same process
as multiplication with regard to critical set nesting used today within
computer programming. Any nested set configuration presents the entirely
CONTRADICTORY configurations of: A nested in B OR B nested within A where
one 100% prohibits the other. This basic fact remains ignored within
mathematics but is crucial for the sciences, particularly evolutionary
theory. While 2+4 is the same as 4+2 producing the additive total of 6, 2*3
is simply not the same as 3*2 even if their non additive total of 6 is the
same number and mathematically equal to the additive total of 6. If you let
these numbers become biological fitnesses the critical difference between
"additive" and "non additive" within evolutionary theory becomes apparent.
Taking the multiplicative case, either two is nested within three OR the
reverse. This can be illustrated as EITHER two books of three stamps OR
three books of two stamps each providing 6 stamps in total. To get at any of
these stamps you firstly have to deal with the books by opening them. The
statement "three times two" refers to three books which contain two stamps
in each book whereas "two times three" refers to a contradictory reverse set
nesting of two books containing three stamps. Please note that as
"populations" they are entirely different. The former provides a population
of 3 books while the latter a population of just 2 even if both populations
contain exactly the same number of stamps. Just to be able to select any one
stamp you firstly have to select one book. If the population of three books
was reproduced from just one parent book then it provides a total fitness of
three compared to a similar situation in the other population of just two.
If we (reversibly) intersect these populations to form one additive
population the result is that 3 books > 2 books simply because one book does
situated within the set of three does not appear within the intersection.
The net result is that the larger total fitness in books is AUTOMATICALLY
selected for even if both populations reproduced exactly the same number of
stamps.
What is being demonstrated using the model above is that any "additive"
fitness remains independent of set nesting whereas any "non additive"
fitness remains set nesting dependent providing two CONTRADICTORY formations
which have to be decided by assumptions of science and not of mathematics.
The importance of this argument to evolutionary theory rationale is just
obvious. Substitute "fertile organism" for "book" and "gene" for "stamp "and
the difference between group selection and non group selection becomes
apparent as does the reason why genes cannot have an independent fitness of
their own. Additive populations of fitness are not group selective they are
entirely individual selective. Taking two populations of fertile organisms
and destroying one of them is not group selective it is 100% individually
selective. Only NON additive in fitness populations constitute selectable
groups where these "populations" constitute what we call "individuals".
You will find that Dawkins, Wilson, Trivers etc in reality, assume
polycentic arguments (assume more than one unit of selection) allowing
themselves the luxury of evading refutation by jumping between sinking
levels of selection. OTOH Darwin's argument remains refutably monocentric
(assumes just the one level of selection). Dawkins argues that his gene
centric argument is individually selective when it cannot be because it
incorporates Hamilton's gene centric argument which allows for organism
centric fitness altruism which remains entirely excluded by Darwin. This
comedy of contradiction has degenerated to such an extent that most Neo
Darwinists today just throw out the Popperian requirement for refutation in
order to protect their favored "irrefutable" position.
Political correctness has always been at center stage within evolutionary
theory. The ruthlessness of Darwinian selection has always been morally
repugnant to the political left and utterly misused by the "might is right"
political right. From the very beginning Herbert Spencer coined the mindless
tautology "survival of the fittest" for the hard right which has stuck like
glue grossly misrepresenting Darwinian evolutionary theory to this very day.
To counteract the dominance of the political right within evolutionary
theory the left got their collective heads together and applied Wallace's
misconceived group selection proposition for the evolution of organism
altruism within nature. This failed simply because fitness selfish
individuals can always invade and take over a population of fitness
altruistic individuals. To attempt counteract this political defeat the left
came up with an ingenious solution: Hamilton's Rule for the evolution of
altruism within nature. This failed because the rule does not contain a
single constant term only allowing a 100% relative irrefutable mathematical
proposition which cannot actually differentiate altruism from selfishness,
anyway. The BIG casualty in this pointless war for political correctness
within evolutionary theory is ORGANISM FITNESS MUTUALISM. This argument,
alone, removes the hated "nature is red in tooth and claw" label incorrectly
applied to Darwinian individual selection.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Article: Complex ecosystems arrived early
- Next by Date: Re: Question about sperm and egg?
- 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
|
Loading
