"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> > JE:-
> > Please note: it was JMcG and _not_ JE
> > who proffered an absurd infinite truth
> > domain when he suggested his infinite number
> > of simultaneous levels of selection 
> > (units of selection) was scientifically 
> > valid. 
> 
> JMcG:-
> Why do you find this proposition so objectionable?  
> 
> JE:-
> Because such a proposition:
> cannot be measured.

AFAIC no propositions are measureable so, as usual, 
your objection is nonsense.

> 
> JMcG:-
> Afterall you do not deny the existence of biological 
> entities such as genes, cells, groups, species, 
> biomes, and ecosytems.  Surely you would not have us 
> ignore the existence and evolutionary origins of 
> these biological entities. 
>  
> JE:-
> I am not ignoring them. Empirically some multi 
> levels can be shown to be _non_ simultaneous,
> i.e. they are selected in a sequence,

Why don't you present this empirical evidence and 
stop blabbering on about domains of truth and other 
nonsense?

 one
> after the other. This fact

What fact?  

 allows _two_ categories 
> of units of selection: _dependent_ and 
> _independent_. Dependent levels are selected
> simultaneously at just one level. Independent
> levels are selected in a sequential way
> such that _only_ the first independent level of
> selection (unit of selection) causes natural
> selection. Composites of the first independent
> level can only be selected to compliment and not
> contradict the first independent level. Fitness
> independence is diagnosed within nature when
> a fitness level is additive. A non additive
> level of fitness remains dependent. 

Pure nonsense.

> 
> JMcG:-
> You're saying it's always necessary to look at 
> evobiological phenomena from the perspective of the 
> individual.  
> 
> JE:-
> No, each _fertile_ individual.

Why only this?  

 This is because
> only this selective level (unit of selection) 
> is empirically, the 1st independent
> (additive) level of selection within nature.

If this is empirical, as you say, then you should be 
able to point to some actual evidence.  Well, what 
are you waiting for?  

> This being the case, 

You've yet to establish any "case" at all.

all dependent levels
> such as the gene level are selected simultaneously
> at just this one, single level of selection.
> Independent levels above the single Darwinian level
> are determined by selection at just this
> first level, e.g. groups of fertile forms.
> If groups of fertile forms acting as one selectee
> attempt to contradict selection at the Darwinian
> fertile form level (which always happens _firstly_ 
> within each grouped selectee) then both  levels 
> lose out and both levels move towards extinction.
> Here selection can only compliment and not contradict
> selection at the Darwinian level.
> 
> JMcG:-
> I'm saying it's not always necessary or 
> desirable to look at evobiological phenomena *only* 
> from the perspective of the individual.  Sometimes it 
> is valuable to look at it from the perspective of 
> these other biological entities/levels/units.
> 
> JE:-
> See above.
> 
> JMcG:-
> John, I'm afraid the expansiveness of evobiological 
> phenomena could never be conceptually confined to 
> your Finite Domain of Truth.  
> 
> JE:-
> The "Finite Domain of Truth" I offer was not mine,
> it was Darwin's.

Well then this is a perfect opportunity for you to 
provide reference.  Well, what are you waiting for?  

 Only because it can be tested to 
> refutation was it _allowed_ as _scientific_. 

Why don't you show us how it is testable?  

> Until you propose an opposing testable theory
> of evolution, what you are proposing cannot 
> validly contest Darwin's single unit of selection
> theory of evolution. The first step is to refute
> Darwin's theory. In your opinion what observation 
> of nature is required to do this?

You show me.  

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 2/26/04 6:47:12 AM