"John W Edser"  wrote 

> > Principle #1 - Individuals are the focus of NS.
> > To my mind, this principle (or rather the widespread acceptance of this
> > principle) is based on four foundational pillars: (1) Occams razor,
> > (2) Some glaringly obvious empirical observations, (3) A growing body
> > of mathematical modeling, and (4) The absense of much empirical
> > data contradicting or evading #3
> 
> JE:-
> I have debated exactly this issue with McGinn for over 4 years.

Yes you have, and you failed miserably every time. 

> Let me assure you he will never reply to this argument. 

Exactly the opposite is the case.  Not only did I 
reply but I trounced your nonsensical argument every 
time.  I eventually got you to claim that Darwin had 
proven the validity of this notion and when I 
requested references *you* did not reply.  


> McGinn
> argues that an infinite number of levels of selection are operating
> simultaneously

No.  (levels of selection don't have physical existence 
so they don't "operate.")

> such that no selective focus exists.

Yes!  This is correct.  NS does not focus on one level 
at the exclusion of any of the others.  

> He has the gall to suggest that no scientific proposition can be measured

That's right.  We can't measure a proposition.  We 
can only measure evidence.  Once again, John, you 
reveal that your thinking has nothing to do with 
good science and everything to do with bad english 
usage.


> so that the fact that his proposition cannot be measured does not make
> it different to any other. Mr McGinns frustration is focused on
> his own recalcitrance.
> 
> > JM
> > Occam's razor is involved because theories that postulate a single
> > "level of selection" are manifestly simpler than
multi-level theories.
> > An assault on this foundation point seems difficult, but not impossible.
> > Once all of the elaborations are taken into account,
"inclusive fitness"
> > for example, no one can claim that our single level theories are
> > truly simple.
> 
> JE:-
> This is where we disagree. It is manifestly obvious that
> selection at the Darwinian organism level is simple, can
> easily  measured and is testable i.e. can be verified/
> refuted within nature.

One can make the exact same claim for any and all 
other levels.  So you are making a distinction 
without a difference.


 This is _not_ the case for inclusive
> fitness. 

Typical Ederian idiocy.  You just shifted the 
discussion from levels of selection to inclusive 
fitness without explaining how or why.  Once again, 
John, you reveal that your thinking as everything 
to do with bad english usage and nothing to do with 
good science.


> McGinn, like most others who post here, refuse to understand
> the critical difference between "an absolute" and just an
> "absolute assumption". 

John is unable to distinguish between an absolute 
assumption and a unit of measure.  He uses these 
concepts interchangeably whenever it is convenient 
to create the illusion that what he's saying makes 
sense.

> An absolute dictates what nature
> is but an absolute assumption allows contestable theories
> of what nature may be i.e. they could not be more different.
> In reality, any testable assumption of nature must contain at least
> one absolute assumption otherwise the entire viewpoint, i.e.
> either a theory or a hypothesis from it, just remains arbitrary.
> Hamilton's theory does not contain a single absolute assumption
> but Darwin's theory, did. It is K.

Jim
---
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 4/8/04 8:56:45 PM