Set Nesting and Set Intersection Within Evolutionary Theory



Guy A Hoelzer hoelzer@xxxxxxx wrote:-

I am happy to see a paragraph where I can agree completely with John.
IMHO
Darwin was being strategic in talking about sexual selection separately
from
natural selection. Hierarchical thinking is hard, and it was
especially
unfamiliar in the 19th century. If Darwin had tried to sell them as a
single package, which they are, then he ran a good chance of being
utterly
rejected by the scientific community of his day. Virtually the entire
community of evolutionary biologists have unpacked Darwin's original
presentation by now and accept sexual selection as a subset of natural
selection. It is, of course, a very special subset worthy of focused
attention.

JE:-
I would like to thank Guy for this clear response. I think we differ as
to
exactly what type of subset sexual selection constitutes. A nested
subset is
not equivalent to an intersecting subset. From Guy's previous responses
I
will assume that he means an intersecting sub set and not a nested sub
set.
Is this correct?

No. In fact, I take the word "subset" to be inconsistent with
"intersecting
sets."

JE:-
Ok. You are NOT assuming a set intersection between sexual selection and
natural selection? Please confirm.

All subsets are nested entirely within the full set.

JE:-
They can be either IRREVERSIBLY or just IRREVERSIBLY assumed to be so. Only
two intersecting sets remain separate sets which can reverse the supposed
set intersection of all of one set in another. In this case this would
reverse C is an intersection of all of A with B to C is empty, i.e. C is not
an intersection of any of A with B. I argue that this reversal has never
been possible for sexual selection and natural selection so sexual selection
must be assumed to be nested WITHIN natural selection and not just
intersected WITH it. Which way around to nest these sets is the next
question to be settled.

Set nesting becomes non reversible because one set has _always been_ assumed
to be entirely absorbed by the other within some _theoretical_ proposition.
The irreversible absorption of one set by another always provides two
contradictory suppositions: A nested within B OR B nested within A. This is
not the case for just intersecting sets where natural selection and sexual
selection can be validly _assumed_ to go their own merry way (as can gene
fitnesses and organism fitness within gene centric Neo Darwinism). Reversing
any assumption of set nesting does not alter the number of primary set
elements but does reverse supposed causative propositions used within the
sciences to explain the number of primary set elements that result.
Mathematically, intersection represents simple reversible and therefore just
additive causative assumptions which fit neatly with mathematical models. On
the other hand set nesting represents more complex _non additive_
irreversible assumptions assumed by the theory the model was derived from
via the process of simplification/oversimplification. Replacing set nesting
with just set intersection, as can be commonly observed within gene centric
Neo Darwinism, allows theory contradictions to exist within just a heuristic
model of that theory!



Of course,
it is possible for alternative subsets to intersect with one another, but
that is not what we are talking about here.

JE:-
This is commonly assumed within Neo Darwinian models.

Sexual selection is a
particular mode of natural selection. There is nothing about sexual
selection that is outside the scope of natural selection.

JE:-
OK EITHER:

1) Sexual selection can be supposed as just a reversible intersection
between the sexual selective set and the natural selective set such that
some/all/none of sexual selection can be _validly_ assumed as a subset of
natural selection. Here no refutation can possibly exist because the
supposition remains arbitrary.



2) Sexual selection is supposed as just an irreversible set nesting within
the natural selective set such that all of sexual selection can only be
validly assumed to be a subset of natural selection OR the reverse on pain
of refutation. IOW when you empirically verify one then you _necessarily_
refute the other.


Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Set Nesting and Set Intersection Within Evolutionary Theory
    ... You are NOT assuming a set intersection between sexual selection and ... natural selection. ... I take it that you do not repudiate the use of set intersection within all ... most outer nested set to just the fertile organism level of selection. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Set Nesting and Set Intersection Within Evolutionary Theory
    ... You are NOT assuming a set intersection between sexual selection and ... natural selection. ... I take it that you do not repudiate the use of set intersection within all ... most outer nested set to just the fertile organism level of selection. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Set Nesting and Set Intersection Within Evolutionary Theory
    ... exactly what type of subset sexual selection constitutes. ... I will assume that he means an intersecting sub set and not a nested sub ... natural selection. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Darwins morality
    ... > selection is genetically determinist and based on sacrificing one's self ... SOMETHING THAT NO OTHER SPECIES HAS EVER ASPIRED ... If natural selection followed the classical models ... to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Ray Martinez: evolution refuted.
    ... favor of evolution is false based on the fact that natural selection, ... want to know why "natural selection... ... *if* you had evidence that the mutations or selection were ... There is no evidence that natural selection is teleologic - I agree. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading