> > > > > > TH:-
> > > > > > IMO what came first the chicken or the egg - is the
> > > > > > wrong question.

> > > > > PF:-
> > > > > Nevertheless, it can't be too wrong since
"the egg" is the right
> > > > > answer. :-)

> > > > JE:-
> > > > No, they evolved simultaneously. At no
> > > > time did one precede the other. This
> > > > is the hard bit to understand.

> > > PF:-
> > > John,
> > > Autonomous cells (proto-eggs) preceded cooperative cell-clusters that
> > > preceded still more complex chickens.
> > > Catch my cognition if you can and care. :-)

> > JE:-
> > Autonomous cells (proto-eggs) were
> > "chickens", i.e. were _independent_
> > units of selection. Eggs remain
> > _dependent__ units of selection.
> > Chickens and eggs are selected
> > as the one nested fitness set  where
> > the fitness of the egg is selected
> > at the fertile chicken, fitness
> > level of selection.

> PF:-
> (4 minutes in boiling water for a 60 gram egg will do me fine. %-\ )
> Imagine a hen on a clutch of 2 fertile eggs: - the hen
> camouflages the eggs
> and steals a short stroll to stretch her legs. While she is away a 'Common
> Foul-Mouthed Egg Nabber' (well know species in Seldomseedonia) sees its
> chance and uses its snout to push aside the camouflage but takes fright at
> the sight of one of the eggs because, due to a mutation, its
> shell displays
> a pattern that looks like death itself to the 'CFMEN' (but not to
> the hen).
> This way the unborn mutated but still immature egg may not only
> successfully
> deal (however passively) with a threat to its candidature for
> ancestorhood,
> but it also need not thank its parents for being in possession of a unique
> individual trait....

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.
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:-
> .. (presumed to be emminently heritable just for the
> gedanken-experimental heck of it) that in this case clearly also
> causes the
> patterned egg to unselfishly lend itself (if only tends as far as this
> metaphor goes) to promote group selection in respect of the entire unborn
> sibling-pair of poultry.

JE:-
A fertilised egg has no fitness to
donate so it cannot be selfish or
unselfish. Zero group selection can/was/is
involved. Group selection represents one
of the worlds largest red herrings. It
has been allowed to re-enter modern debate
because Hamilton's rule failed after it was
originally employed to replace group selection.
The irony remains that Hamilton's rule was group
selective, anyway. This amazing Neo Darwinistic
merry go round can only be explained by incompetence
and/or bias. IMHO political bias is the more
simple causative conjecture. Look at the
political beliefs of the people responsible
for this mess and thus their possible motives
and then make you own mind.

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 9/12/04 4:53:29 PM