Re: Speculation on Future Evolution



"Tom Hendricks" tomhendricks474@xxxxxx wrote:-

The classic group selection experiment of McCullogh and Wade (1980)
can be interpreted as evolution in an anti-nurturing direction. And
I think that H. sap. is moving in that direction today, though it is
definitely not clear how long this trend will continue.
You may wish to research r-selection vs K-selection. In many cases,
r-selection leads to less nurture, while K-selection leads to more.
Similarly for protection (of self or offspring).

Well we may have def. problems. But for me the choice of r selection or
K selection is - for that species - what best nurtures or protects that
species
in that environment at that time.
I don't think the choice of r or K in anyway supports less nurturing or
protection for the species - though it may for the individual egg in a
case
by case basis.

JE:-
The "classic group selection experiment of McCullogh and Wade (1980)" was
entirely additively fertile organism selective and not at all group
selective. I am happy to discuss this in detail with anybody.

The argument that "the choice of r selection or K selection is - for that
species - what best nurtures or protects that species in that environment at
that time" remains classically group selective which only repeats, yet again
(how many more times?), all the errors of the classical group selective
argument originally sketched out by Wallace and later developed by V.C.
Wynn-Edwards. The statement "I don't think the choice of r or K in anyway
supports less nurturing or protection for the species - though it may for
the individual egg in a case by case basis" verifies that Tom cannot/refuses
differentiate between just a classically group selective argument and the
Darwinian NON group selective argument. This is the reason why Tom's posts
to his favorite topic remain confused. Of course Tom is not alone. Some of
the professionals that post here who are well paid to know better keep on
making exactly the same error while refusing any discussion on the topic.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxx







.