Re: Set Nesting and Set Intersection Within Evolutionary Theory


"verulam" <johnhewitt22@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:eh0fhm$2esk$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear All,
I am coming to this thread somewhat cold but I find myself agreeing
with John Edser's conclusion, albeit that I cannot fathom his
reasoning. I am inclined to ask JE, have you written your extended
argument down anywhere, so that I could read it?

My own approach to evolution, which I call bioepistemic evolution, is
to argue that evolutionary theory should be based on the concept of
data rather than genes. On that basis, sexual selection intersects with
but is not a subset of natural selection - the mechanism of sexual
selection requires inputs of exogenous data from sense organs, that
data being used to examine the evident phenotype of potential sexual
partners and as the basis for the subsequent sexual selection.

Such exogenous data inputs are not necessary for natural selection.

An interesting point. But it depends on what you see as the selecting
agent. In sexual selection, a conspecific is selecting based, as you
say, on sense data. However, if a bird is taking butterfly prey based
in part on butterfly coloration, how is this different? Or, rather,
why is the difference important?


.

Quantcast