jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net (Jim Menegay) wrote 

> My take on Price:  The equation is very pretty.  But it has the 
> deficiency of "dynamic insufficiency" (as described in the papers).  
> One of the earliest applications of the equation was to group selection, 
> and the book "Unto Others" by Elliot Sober and D. S. Wilson sketches 
> some credible biological models in which "group selection" ala Price 
> obviously can work.  The trick is that the group lifetime is comparable 
> to the individual lifetime.

Even this trick is unneccessary if you don't start 
from the assumption that individual organisms 
represent "the" parameter of evolutionary truth.  

> However, the book then tries to apply group selection to human 
> evolution of altruism, and I don't think it applies.  My reason has 
> to do with the dynamic insufficiency.  There needs to be some kind of 
> mechanism to continually refresh the variance between groups in the 
> frequency of altruists - otherwise within-group selection will 
> overwhelm between-group selection.  

The notion that selection at one level/unit of biological 
phenomena can or will overwhelm selection at another 
"competing" level/unit of biological phenomena is a 
common fallacy.  It suggests this existence of logical 
relationships that have no empirical existence.  Levels 
(of biological phenomena) don't compete, so there is no 
such thing as selection at one level overwhelming 
selection at another level.

> Humans don't live in haystacks.

Humans live in communities.  The fate of humans is often 
largely determined by the fate of their community and the 
fate of their community is largely determined by the 
actions of the members that comprise the community.

> My current thinking is that reciprocity is the key.  

If the situational factors dictate group selection 
then reciprocity is a given.



I think your whole approach is, in part, indicative 
of a common fallacy.  The fallacy pivots off the 
common misconception that individual selection is 
provable and proven and/or that individual selection 
is a distinct process or even a distinct force.  The 
reality is that individual selection is no more 
provable or proven (and no less provable or proven) 
than is selection at any other level and it is not a 
distinct process or force.  

Individual organisms do exist.  Natural selection is 
the cause of individual origanisms.  Social groups of 
organisms do exist.  Natural selection is the cause 
of social groups of organisms.  Species, ecosystems, 
biotas, cells, genes, do exist.  NS is the cause of 
all of these also.  There is no contradiction in any 
of this.  

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 3/13/04 6:07:11 AM