"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:bj54c7$1ptf$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> > JE:-
> > [I think it is the height of arrogance that you
> > assume to put your words into Darwin's mouth, even
> > in jest..]
>
> PF:-
> Do you think another little peak of Peter's arrogance would be to propose
> that you remember your own post (especially one that 'sugg_jest_ively' put
> words in Darwin's mouth), and that you read enough of what post so that
you
> can catch the point you respond to before you post your reply.
>
> JE:-
> The post I sent was _emphasised_ to be just a
> hypothetical discussion between Darwin and
> many others. I did not just plonk one entire
> post into Darwin's mouth and leave it at that.
>
> PF:-
> How otherwise could you have missed my emphasising that phenotypes are, by
> Darwinian principle, what it is that is being "pressured" and that
possibly
> prevails to produce phylogeny of flora and fauna (first and foremost).
>
> JE:-
> That changes nothing at all! The last time I looked
> all phenotypes were only selectable _sub_ categories
> or fertile organisms so that only _entire_ organism
> systems are selectable entities, period. Only
> ENTIRE organism systems and NOT their phenotypic
> parts are valid units of selection within Darwinian
> theory. OK?
>
> PF:-
> Perhaps musicians are prone to solo-recitatives (or in your case to barge
> ahead, before time, with a brassy brake)?
>
> JE:-
> No, they understand the structure they create within.
> You require a minium technique to be able to play
> anything. If you don't know what Darwin's theory
> is then you don't have the minimum.

I feel rather secure being a member of this vast "flock" (one indirectly
identified by you as consisting of people lacking logical rigour and who
"don't know what Darwin's theory is") even though it is being shot at
(indiscriminately) by you and that you seem to believe would have been shot
at by Darwin too. :-)

Pity Darwin is dead -- because I'd like to see how he would (if at all)
debate your preoccupation with 'theoretical precision' to the point of
missing the main explanatory point to be taken from a concept such as the
"Evolutionary Pressure Totality".

That concEPT (or EPT in this particular sense) does of course also cover
Darwinian (phenotype affecting) *environmental* (not excluding feedback
effected) "selective pressures" on individual candidates (or, for your
pleasure, _single organismic_ candidates) for contributing to consequtive
(both prospective and past) generations of 'copulation'. (Please allow for
the alliteration, because I also mean single-cell organism procreation.)

Regards,
P
---
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 9/4/03 3:19:44 PM