> > JE:-
> > Your "unique individual trait" can only be selected
> > within the fertile parent/parents and NOT within their
> > infertile offspring simply _because_ these offspring
> > are infertile. The genes within any infertile form
> > remain entirely trapped until these forms becomes fertile.

> PF:-
> Surviving a specific environmental adversity type pressure, will,
> especially
> if others (including nearly related candidates such as siblings
> and cousins)
> who vie for the same "role of future ancestor" in the same natural
> "auditioning procedure", do die from the pressure of the audition.

JE:-
An audition for selection is not the final act.
It is not over "until the fat lady sings".
That "fat lady" is Darwinian fitness, exactly
as I have defined it. If you don't get it
then you don't get it....

> PF:-
> The most useful and significant thing to recognize about
> Darwinian selection
> pressures is the pressures themselves.
>snip<

JE:-
All selective pressures have exactly
the same classification: "opportunity
type". What you are actually attempting to
classify are Darwinian _selectee responses_
to  "opportunity type" selective pressures
as the only classification of selective
pressures.

Living things differ to non living things
because each living form actively responds in
a _unique_ way to the _same_ selective pressure.
A car fender deforms in a predictable way when
it is dented which to some extent can be
predicted by the laws of physics. However
living things do not respond to "denting"
in such a pacified way, they actively respond.
They import energy so they can actively respond.
They have a genetic system that orchestrates
their responses. If they are lucky they have
a learning system that compliments their genetic
response. Homeostasis means that the combined
response is to "undent" the dent as quickly and
as cheaply as possible> the other possibility is
to employ the dent as a useful adaptation. They
may even start denting themselves in apparent act
of "self sacrifice". Of course, like beauty, "self
sacrifice" is entirely in the "eye of the beholder"
because the "fat lady" has yet to sing....

> > JE:-
> > Once fertile they become _independent_ units
> > of selection in their own right while at the very same
> > instant they also become an addition to their parents
> > Darwinian total. It is these totals that are consistently
> > maximised by each parent within one population. They
> > end up being compared by default resulting in Darwinian
> > natural selection. Only in this way can your "unique individual
> > trait" be naturally selected. The gene centric argument that
> > infertile forms actually have an independent fitness is
> > a very serious error. This error remains grounded in Fisher's
> > simplification that Hamilton employed within his badly
> > incomplete rule. In short, Neo Darwinians have failed
> > to balance the fitness books but refuse to admit that
> > this is the case.

> PF:-
> You just keep exemplifying what I perceive to be a most fruitless argument
> (since all it does is a stalling of a potentially forming
> philanthropically
> oriented overview, or ditto outlook on, human nature (how we are).

JE:-
Your perception that Darwinian fitness remains
a "fruitless argument" is utterly wrong.

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 9/14/04 9:52:45 PM