Re: Speculation on Future Evolution
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:49:19 -0400 (EDT)
"JoeSP" olegp@xxxxxxx wrote:-
toIf you disagree, can you give examples of evolved changes that leads
less nurturing
or less protection for the species at that moment in time? Give
examples.
I suppose the prevalence of selfish genes would be the best example. I
have
alluded to how such groups are selected against in previous postings.
I'm not sure. Selfish genes may hinder the organism, but I think in the
long
run it supports the species through more nurturing and/or protection.
Can you give a specfic ex. of how selfish genes might not nurture or
protect
the species?
You seem to be a regular contributor to this group. Have you not seen the
numerous examples I have provided in refuting John Edser?
JE:-
Two comments:
1) JoeSP cannot differentiate between a non verification and refutation so
he is continually making a basic epistemological error within his argument.
Please note that JoeSP remains in good company because the same applies to
the most senior poster here: Prof. J. Felsenstein. His nemesis within the
increasingly bitter Haldane Dilemma dispute (Walter ReMine) continues to
make the same error. The difference is ReMine states the obvious that the
absolute (total) cost of substitution has to be paid _before_ any relative
cost can attempt to cover it whereas Felsenstein doesn't.
2) Because the total fitness per selectee per population (no matter how you
define fitness or one selectee) of any proposed altruistic actor continues
to remain entirely deleted from JoeSP's arguments, and I might add every
other argument presented here, no frame of reference exists to allow anybody
to be able to differentiate between the RELATIVE OPPOSITE propositions of
altruism and selfishness within evolutionary theory.
I have cited plenty of examples where selfish individuals eventually
dominate a group, only to have the group selected against at a later time.
JE:-
Yes. I very carefully explained that this CAN ALSO BE VERIFIED as organism
fitness mutualism in however, an entirely _refutable_ way whereas JoeSP's
argument, including every other argument presented here for the evolution of
organism fitness altruism including Hamilton's famous argument, can only be
_non verified_. My careful clarification of this critical point remains
ignored by JoeSP.
Think of it as a store full of thieves who all seem to benefit, until
there's nothing left to steal, and the store ceases to exist.
JE:-
Yes. Thieves can gain relatively but only while losing absolutely (totally).
During the cold war this very simple bit of reasoning was termed "Mutual
Assured Destruction" or MAD. Only when the costs became escalated to their
most extreme did the rationale that a relative gain is never worth an
absolute loss become obvious to just about everybody. Thieves can only end
up making a VERY expensive _non stable_ absolute loss in place of a much
cheaper but this time, _stable_ absolute gain. Nature is not as stupid as a
thief. Because of Van Valen's Red Queen effect, total costs continue to sky
rocket for any thief reducing that thief's absolute gains and the absolute
gains of their unfortunate victims. This produces a TOTAL fitness lose/lose
situation which cannot be selected for within Darwinian nature. Please note
that it may take a thief an entire lifetime to empirically demonstrate this
effect to any thieves satisfaction.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Speculation on Future Evolution
- Next by Date: Re: Haldane's Dilemma - again, again, again, ...
- Previous by thread: Re: Speculation on Future Evolution
- Next by thread: Re: Speculation on Future Evolution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
