"Peter F"  wrote:

> The Edserian concept of "fertile (Darwinian) units of selection"
> (every verifiably successful past and future Darwinian selectee)
> describes 'segments of lineages that are a phylogenetic faits à
> compli', and nothing else.

JE:-
Incorrect. The total number of fertile forms
reproduced into one population represents a
refutable Darwinian maximand for the science of
biology. Such a testable maximand does not just
constitute "segments  of lineages that are a phylogenetic
faits à ompli and nothing else" because _specific_ events
become deducible from this single maximand within
a theory structure allowing testable to refutation
predictions. One of the most import predictions is a
point of refutation for the entire Darwinian maximand
concept: a parent cannot be _selected_ to reduce
their own Darwinian fitness maximand. Put in a positive
sense all parents are required, at all times, to maximise
the Darwinian maximand (that is why it is called a maximand).

Hamilton's heuristic view of gene centric selection requires
parents to be selected to reduce their own Darwinian fitness
maximand, i.e. requires a formal refutation of Darwinism.
No such refutation exists because zero organism fitness
altruism has been documented within nature. All of it
can be accounted by organism fitness mutualism. Because Hamilton's
rule deleted large amounts of fitness as a "baseline fitness"
and rb and c were only compared by subtraction, without ALL the
fitness of the actor actually included the rule cannot discriminate
between the cost c as a selfish but mutual investment or
c as an altruistic donation. This means  (like Enron's accountants)
Hamilton et al cannot tell a credit from a debit yet the rule is
used as accounting standard to measure when organism fitness altruism
can evolve! Like the Enron accountants Hamilton et al live in their
own Mad Hatter's world where all things are possible while
reality ploughs on regardless. The most important prediction
of the Darwinian maximand is that only organism fitness
mutualism is stable. Either fertile forms associate for mutual
but not necessarily Darwinian fitness gains or they may as
well not bother!

If you think that defining a single testable Maximand for the
science of biology is just "sterile" then you do not understand
the implication of such an important event. I suggest you think
again.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/16/04 9:48:47 PM