huckturner{at}hotmail.com (Huck Turner) wrote 

> I haven't read The Devil's Chaplain, but I've read most of Dawkins's
> other books. As far as I can remember, I think his view is that you
> don't _need_ to adopt a species level perspective to explain any
> traits of living organisms and that's why he rejects explanations in
> those terms.

The perspective one choses is completely arbitrary.  There is no rule
or law that tells us that one perspective is better than another. 
Selection is not a level/unit specific process.


 It's an issue of parsimony. 

Parsimony is applicable to hypotheses, not assumptions or unit.

You could perhaps come up
> with a species level account of a certain set of phenomena, but it
> wouldn't add anything

It would add a different perspective.

 to what a gene level account already provides.
> In other cases, a species level account may also make incorrect
> predictions, which is a more obvious reason to reject it.

Incorrect predictions are possible regarless of the perspective
chosen.

 I agree with
> him on this (assuming I'm representing his view accurately), but I
> have to say I don't really understand the arguments that some people
> on this newsgroup have made for group/species selection, so perhaps I
> could be persuaded to change my mind.

Selection doesn't happen on/to levels.  It happens to biological
phenomena in its entirety.

> 
> 
> > I think almost everyone agrees that an ecosystem is first and foremost
> > an economy - and that *most* of its features can be explained well in 
> > those terms.  However I would not like to state that none of it is best
> > described in terms of species-level differential reproduction and
> > selection.
> > 
> > The whole passage makes me wonder whether Dawkins appreciates the
> > possibilty of species-level selection properly at all.
> > 
> > If not, that isn't good news - IMO.

I agree.

> > 
> > Species *do* reproduce, vary and exhibit differential reproductive
> > success - albeit at a rather slow rate of knots - and so are
> > practically bound to evolve by natural selection.
> > 
> 
> You could perhaps formulate a coherent theory of species selection,
> but would it explain anything that the gene centred version doesn't?
> 
> 
> > The idea that gene-level selection totally and precisely undoes all the 
> > effects of species selection is absurd.  
> 
> I don't know what you mean by 'undoes'.
> 
> 
> > Rather organisms are the result 
> > of a tug of war between these forces - with neither one completely 
> > dominant.
> 
> I don't know if viewing them as competing forces is really
> appropriate.

I agree.  They aren't competing forces.

 Assuming a coherent theory of species selection can be
> formulated,

Not necessary.  The theory is no different.

 the process of species selection would, by definition,
> operate at a different level to gene selection so wouldn't necessarily
> act as an opposing force. By analogy, there are laws that apply to the
> motion of subatomic particles and laws that apply to the motion of
> objects at everyday scales, but we wouldn't want to say that any
> particular motion that we observe is the result of competition between
> these different sets of laws.
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> H.
> 
> ---
> Like-minds don't notice shared mistakes. Talk to someone else.
---
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 3/1/04 6:55:33 AM