hibbsa{at}yahoo.com (Al London) wrote:

> H:- 
> One observation regardomg the ongoing debate about evolutionary
> mechanisms where selection is concerned, is that a distinction should
> be drawn between whether or not you generally accept that Darwin did
> catch a glimpse of the core mechanism in evolution, and whether or not
> you are fully confident Darwin and everyone since has yet got the core
> mechanism absolutely right.

JE:-
I agree. However I do not agree that Darwin
only caught "glimpse of the core mechanism in evolution".
IMHO the core mechanism was so simple he neglected
to articulate it as such. Darwinian fitness is just 
the total number of fertile forms reproduced into one
population by each parent. I suggest this can be proven
by a simple experiment. Here (again) is a brief outline:

If the definition of Darwinian fitness that I have
presented within sbe is true then the following
point of refutation follows by simple deduction.
IF all selectees (fertile forms) within one population
becomes forced to raise to fertile adulthood exactly
the same number of adult forms then all evolution via
Darwinian natural selection must now be halted. 
If it isn't then this definition of Darwinian
fitness stands refuted. Note that if all evolution 
progresses via natural selection on heritable variation
then random processes such as mutation and genetic
drift could be proven to/not to/ cause evolution
without selection via this experiment. I predict that
random processes without selection can only provide
the dissolution of parental fitnesses and not evolution.

The Neo Darwinian establishment remains recalcitrant. 
I have posted this experiment to sbe a number of
times. Dr Moran refused to even discuss it because
he favours random processes as alone, validly
causative to evolution. On a more general scale
Neo Darwinism refuses to admit that it has misused 
gene centric models of fitness, e.g. Hamilton's rule. 


> H:-
> For me this is an important distinction, because the argument about
> the role of selection is carrying a great deal of baggage around with
> it, and that it quite emotive for a lot of people. 

JE:-
Yes, I agree. I suggest that this
"baggage" is mostly political. Darwinism
only appears to be "right wing" and was 
entirely misused as such by many people including 
Hitler.  Now it appears it is the turn of the 
extreme left to misuse evolutionary theory.  
Hamilton led the charge against organism 
fitness selfishness (OFS) using Fisher's 
(a right wing fanatic) fitness argument and 
created the monster of organism fitness altruism 
(OFA). Just like OFS, OFA has devoured evolutionary
theory. ONE reality remains: organism fitness
mutualism (OFM) has always dominated evolutionary 
theory. However both OFS and OFA schools write it 
off as "ordinary" or "uninteresting". I can only
conclude that this is because of political bias.

> H:-
> But this highly
> charged wing of the debate has often undermined the workings of the
> less passionate and more subtle debates. I'm referring most typically
> to the far greater propensity people debating evolution have for
> jumping to conclusions. This is of course driven by the polarisation
> of the debate about the role of selection in evolution.

JE:-
Until the ONE Darwinian maximand of Darwinian
Fitness is fully understood evolutionary theory
remains open to constant assault.

Note: the process of OFM is 
exactly the same as the process
of trade except that no cognition
is involved. It remains amazing to me
that not only has OFM been avoided
within both the OFS and OFA schools of 
thought, trade has never been recognised
as THE human adaptation within common 
tracts re: human evolution. Of course, 
this is because of the politicisation of
the process of trade. It is not possible
to discuss trade without political
overtones. In the same way "altruism" and
"selfishness" cannot be discussed in 
dispassionate terms and should never
have been employed within evolutionary
theory. The struggle between group selection
and individual selection parallels the
same logic as the argument between
communism and capitalism and all the
emotional baggage that this entails.

So what is coming out of this Neo Darwinian 
"wash"? Only mutualised gains are really stable
because only they can provide absolute and not 
just relative gains. It is that simple!
Neither the older OFS or the new dominating 
OFA school of thought will even discuss 
the critical relationship between absolute 
and relative fitness gains. The dominant 
OFA school just writes off absolute fitness 
within Hamilton's rule, allowing a rule 
that cannot even differentiate between c 
as a donation and c as an investment
i.e. allowing OFM to be misrepresented
as OFA.


>snip<

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au


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 9/7/04 12:45:53 PM