Michael Ragland  wrote:

....
> 
> John Wilkins:
> .. My view is that selection will not drive an entire widespread
> species like ours to anything; adaptation is local to the deme or
> metapopulation.
> 
> Ragland:
> Forgive my ignorance. What is a "deme" and a
"metapopulation". I get the
> impression a "metapopulation" is a large sized population. 

A deme is a population formed by breeding individuals, locally. It is a
smaller thing than a species.

Most species that have an extended range are formed of a number of
metapopulations, which is a group of demes that share their genes. A
species at any time may have more than one metapopulation (if, for
example, a deme or more is isolated geographically temporarily).

As adaptation affects the frequencies of alleles in a population,
selection can only affect, at most, a metapopulation that shares
selective pressures. But any species that is widely extended will cover
a range of selective pressures, and so selection will not be uniform
across the entire range. As a result, for humans, which *are* a widely
ranging species, selection cannot really apply evenly across the entire
species.
> 
> John Wilkins:
>  *Prior* adaptations may just result in our extinction - I'm thinking of
> our adaptations that lead us to xenophobia and violence. But that is not
> selection, except in the sense that these adaptations are
> pleiotropically linked to genes that *are* under selection.
> 
> Ragland:
> Okay. But at one time aggression, xenophobia, etc. were apart of
> selection. If they are pleiotropically linked to genes under selection
> why wouldn't they theoretically still be under selection? For example,
> assuming Darwinian evolution was given enough time wouldn't it be
> possible aggression would be under selection and gradually it would be
> "removed" since it was no longer adaptive?

In environments where aggression is selectively disadvantaged. But the
majority of humans today, whether they live in small tribal arrangements
or large cosmopolitan environments, live in situations where aggression
is not so disadvantaged.

This sets up a situation where group selection may be invoked - those
groups that are less aggressive may in fact be overrun by aggressive
groups. It's happened before.
> 
> Ragland: 
> I'm also curious where you all fall on the biological determinism
> debate. My "guess" is most of you are neither hardliners or
the opposite
> where there is no aspect of our biology which isn't somewhat
> biologically determined. The question is how determined and under what
> circumstances it can internationally violently flare up. 
> 
> John Wilkins:
> Assuming you meant aspect of our *psychology* I am a strong determinist
> - nothing we do or say is not strongly biased by our biological nature.
> But biological natures have a norm of reaction and a normal distribution
> (or a skewed one, but that is evidence in a largish population of some
> selective pressure).
> 
> Ragland:
> What is largish. I'm intelligent but not well read. 

Selective models tend to apply to panmictic populations (where there is
a relatively even probability of any two alleles mixing), and where the
size of the population does not force drift to overtake selection by
sheer stochastic sampling error.
> 
>  In short, there are a wide range of states that our biological natures
> can attain, and they very much depend on contingent effects of the
> developmental environments, social, and ecological. 
> It is not a widely accepted viewpoint, I know. 
> 
> Ragland:
> Your argument is complex and subtle and for that reason you're right it
> is not a widely accepted viewpoint. At first glance it appears you
> confirm my statement,  "My "guess" is most of you are
neither hardliners
> or the opposite where there is no aspect of our biology which isn't
> somewhat biologically determined." But you preface that with,
"Assuming
> you meant aspect of our *psychology* I am a strong determinist - nothing
> we do or say is not strongly biased by our biological nature. But
> biological natures have a norm of reaction and a normal distribution (or
> a skewed one, but that is evidence in a largish population of some
> selective pressure)."

This merely means that, no matter how rigidly we are determined by
biology, biology is capable of attaining a range of states rather than a
single one, given its sensitivities to boundary conditions.
> 
> John Wilkins:
> The essay you quoted reiterates the standard fare - that socialists
> cannot be biological determinists (why not? Perhaps Kropotkin was right
> and we are biological cooperators), that determinism is social Darwinism
> (there never was such a thing but once; all the rest is just labelling);
> etc. But the evidence is mounting and we just have to deal with it. 
> 
> Ragland:
> I detect here you are not a "rigid" biological determinist. Do you see
> biological cooperation as being on par with biological competition? Do
> you see biological cooperation as being more a feature of our evolution
> than biological competition? Social Darwinism seemed to be born out in
> human experience with Nazi Germany. One can dismiss this as an
> abnormality but I think that is dangerous. My own view is humans are
> more competitive than cooperative. 

This is a usual problem people have mapping genetic "self-interest" and
"competition" with human behavioral self-interest and competition. The
former is metaphorical - the use of social terms to illustrate the
expected dynamics of genes. In effect, selfish gene talk is like this:
"imagine genes are a group of really amoral self-interested agents, how
would they play out in practice? Genes are like that." But that does not
mean genetic "selfishness" cannot result in actual human cooperation.
Indeed, that is what the point of the following is:

Axelrod, Robert. 1990. The evolution of cooperation, Penguin politics.
London.

In short, gene selfishness can generate agent altruism as an
evolutionarily stable strategy, in the right conditions.
> 
> John Wilkins:
> My view on genetic engineering is that, like any technology, it all
> depends on the goals, the sensitivity of the practioners to evidence,
> and the potential cost of failure. We build bridges that way - we should
> employ genetic therapies the same way. Eliminate Tay-Sachs? Go for it.
> Engineer thin-hipped women with classic faces? Not on your life
> 
> Ragland:
> I agree with you. But if the industry remains unregulated many unethical
> and potentially dangerous applications are bound to occur. 

I have a political objection to formal regulation - it leads to a
situation where those regulating have vested interests in the
continuation of regulation, and this skews the objectivity of their
judgement. This is not fatal, but it means you must counterbalance this
tendency, and you cannot always do that safely.

That said, I'll snip the remainder.

....

-- 
Dr John Wilkins
john_SPAM{at}wilkins.id.au   http://wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss" 
                                               - Francis Bacon
---
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 6/27/04 10:28:32 PM