"Guy Hoelzer"  wrote in message
news:cc205i$2smq$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> Jim,
>
> in article cc1bki$2lin$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, Perplexed in Peoria at
> jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net wrote on 7/1/04 8:46 AM:
>
> > 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.
>
> This is far too extreme.  The "new group selection" allows for this
> possibility, largely as a result of the work of McCaughley and colleagues;
> but I am quite certain that D.S. Wilson would not agree with you that this
> defines the bounds of the "new group selection."

Slightly too extreme, maybe, but surely not far too extreme.

I really don't know what D. S. Wilson would think.  I have not read much
of his recent work, besides this book.  However, the model which is considered
one of the two foundations of the new group selection

  A Theory of Group Selection
  David Sloan Wilson
  PNAS, Vol. 72, No. 1. (Jan., 1975), pp. 143-146.

certainly fits well within my bounds, as does the example provided in Unto
Others.  If you know of a worked out example of the new group selection
that is outside these bounds, I would appreciate a reference.

Who is "McCaughley"?  Do you mean McCauley and Wade (1980)?  That is
EMPIRICAL results.  I pay no attention to that stuff.  I'm only
interested in models.  ;-)
---
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