Re: Intensity of selection and the Price equation - continued(2)



"Peter F" 19eimc_minus19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

snip<

By the three questions below I am asking you to contemplate an =
explanatory
philosophical take and position of overview of/on tolerably certain
"evolution pertaining tendencies" (from phylogenetic as well as
psychophysiological and behavioral) that is neither logically
contradictory
of your accounting for the general aspects of our evolution nor in
conflict
with (rather, complementary of) your particular angels of insight into =
the
same real phenomenon.
1. Is not the concept of natural selection *most typically* associated
with
all the different lifetime circumstances that to a greater or lesser
degree
lowers the count of (the number of)* fertile forms reproduced by =
fertile
individuals?

JE;-
Yes, all these "different lifetime circumstances " only constitute sub
selective events, i.e. they remain relative to each independent TDF =
which
alone constitutes one fixed and therefore constant fitness per selectee =
per
population as a fully refutable absolute assumption. Of course all of =
the
hard work carried out in nature is via sub selective events which =
however,
remain 100% relative to just the one, single, Darwinian TDF maximand
fitness.=20

2. Is not the same concept relatively less often and less strongly
associated with intrinsic (physioanatomical, chemical, or even more
fundamental) and extrinsic
(environmental) patterning potentials (or opportunities) for >=3D =
minimally
complex and potentially self-replication capable molecular structures =
(or
ditto 'functural' systems) to form (some such forms of which have
successively buded and branched into the "tree growth like" process of
phylogeny)?

JE:-
The comparison of just replication subtotals/totals per population =
remains
an optimized _sub_ selective event whereas the comparison of maximized
totaled fertile reproductions per parent per population constitutes a
single, refutable, Darwinian selective event.

[My most simple answer would be: Yes.
And, I might add: It is true to such an extent that it warrants a =
thinking
in terms of (the didactically dialectic dichotomy of) *adverse* =
(primarily
destructive or 'descendant detracting') and *opportune* evolutionary
patterning potentials or outcomes".]

JE;-
The opportunity/adversity dichotomy to which you refer remains 100% =
relative
to TDF. IOW an "opportunity" represents a real possibility to increase =
TDF
while "adverse" situation presents any possible reduction in TDF which =
would
mostly result in that parent being less competitive. It is the response =
of
each independent Darwinian selectee to these events that really matters. =
The
same event may constitute an opportunity for one parent but an adverse
situation to another, even within the same population.
=20
3. Is it not possible to approximately correlate past, obviously (or =
with
tolerance principled realism *known* to have) significantly often =
occurred
"lifetime challenges" - the specific conditions, events, and =
interactions,
of which, are the once real-time exemples of certain generally defined
classes or types of selection/evolutionary pressures, with internal =
and
phenotypic traits?

JE:-
Yes. However a correlation only constitutes an observation. What a =
theory
does is explain a correlation as either a verification, non verification =
OR
a refutation. When a non verification becomes hopelessly confused with a
refutation or refutation becomes allowed to be deleted then the supposed
theory is only explaining something away, i.e. is almost entirely =
concerned
with a political "solution".

My regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher
One Tour -- Hong Kong -- Amsterdam -- Edinburgh



.