Perplexed in Peoria  wrote or quoted:

> My main objection to the book is that while it explains the difference
> between the "old group selection" (discredited) and the
"new group
> selection" (plausible), it then goes on to forget this distinction
> and speculate on human altruism as if the "old group selection"
> mechanisms were working.  Michael's other post, quoting Campbell,
> illustrates one unfortunate result.  People just don't "get"
> the distinction.
> 
> The first reviewer above also doesn't "get" it, when (s)he writes:
> "Groups, however ephemeral, do have a role to play in selection."
> 
> No! No! No!  The correct lesson to take from the "new group selection"
> is that groups have a role ONLY IF they are ephemeral and if the
> organisms in those groups do most of their breeding outside the
> group.

It's not clear what your distinction is here :-|

AFAICT, the "old" group selection is still alive to some extent.

I don't think I've even heard of some sort of "new group selection"
that depends for its existence on outbreeding.  What is all that
about?

Normally, outbreeding is the enemy of group selection of all sorts.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
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 7/2/04 4:57:44 PM