Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list



"J.A. Legris" <jalegris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:-

Considering the slow and painful mass extinction likely to arise from
overpopulation, war seems less maladaptive than religion, superstition
and ignorance.

JE:-
Hi Joe,

My point: war presents all of us with our increasingly unhappy
supertribal maldaptation which however, remains based on an entirely
natural, little destructive tribal mechanism which was originally based
on aggression via ritualized display. This _evolved to limit our tribal
populations_ by forcing them to spread out i.e. aggressive display
represents a selected, complex density dependent response which reduces
overgrazing. Groups become adapted at the Darwinian fertile adult
organism level to _mutualize each parents fitness relationship_, i.e.
intertribal aggression can evolve to mutualize Total Darwinian Fitness
(TDF) even between predators and their prey, removing Van Valen's
misconception of a constant war existing within nature. The TDF maximand
cannot be selected to be reduced to something less than it would have
been. If it can be, Darwinism stands empirically falsified.

Fitness mutualism has been misinterpreted as a group selective/selfish
gene, poly-centric altruistic/selfish response allowing fitness altruism
even when this falsifies mono-centric Darwinism (the theory these
poly-centric models were oversimplified from in the first place). The
common altruism Vs selfishness misconception has only come about because
fitness mutualism cannot be objectively differentiated from fitness
altruism within oversimplified, uncorrected Neo Darwinian models of
Darwinism. This is because none of these 100% mathematically based
models have a defined fitness constant. Mathematics is not a science. At
least one constant is absolutely required to act as a Galilean,
falsifiable frame of reference for evolutionary theory. TDF represents
this missing constant.

With Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kin Selection contradiction?
    ... rather than on the unilateral altruism covered by the Rule. ... theory is Darwinian fitness which is a finite total. ... When an altruistic gene only ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The Misuse Of Hamiltons Rule
    ... >> does allow the Darwinian maximand fitness ... >> between organism fitness altruism and organism ... >> to determine when organism fitness altruism can ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Interview with Mayr
    ... >> fitness of one A organism within evolutionary theory ... >> Population genetics has made a speciality out of such misuse. ... >> we think it may be and test it refutation via any of its ... Unless you can define absolute Darwinian fitness you ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Theories, models, and simplifications
    ... Hamilton never, so far as I know, used the variables "b" ... the fitness with all *reception* of social effects ignored. ... with different *reception* of altruism. ... but when you requested a refutation of Hamilton's ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • TDF Journals Vs the internet
    ... "Total Darwinian Fitness as a FALSIFIABLE FITNESS MAXIMAND" ... Science was historically done via ANY REASONABLE FREE MINDED PERSON ... it is actually the reverse: the mono-centric TDF approach which I ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)