Re: Set Nesting and Set Intersection Within Evolutionary Theory


"John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:eglude$30te$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Guy A Hoelzer hoelzer@xxxxxxx wrote:-

I am happy to see a paragraph where I can agree completely with John.
... 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."

Oops!

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.
[snip more in this vein]

;-) Here we go again.

Well, Guy, you have my sympathy. But you had to have known this
was coming. I'm just glad I didn't say that!


.