Re: Set Nesting and Set Intersection Within Evolutionary Theory



"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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:-
Guy has decided not to play politics on such a key issue so he is correctly
providing a non ambiguous answer. It appears that you do not like this and
would prefer to keep things ambiguous. If not, then please supply ANY
REASONABLE criticism instead of this utterly useless polemic ....


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

JE:-
What Jim are YOU assuming?

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.

JE:-
Rather obviously Jim would prefer this discussion to remain evaded because
he does not like where it is leading to.


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

JE:-
So far Jim has said nothing at all. Sitting on the fence on this critical
issue provides nothing of substance and hence just a ZERO resolution for the
BASIC evolutionary theory issues that remain connected to it.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx



.