Name And Address Supplied wrote:-

> > > NAS:-
> > > The trade-off described by "Disposable soma", as
you have described
> > > it, is equivalent to general "Antagonistic
pleiotropy". In both cases,
> > > variants arise which either promote functioning early or late, and
> > > early is favoured as here reproductive value is highest.

> > JE:-
> > The phrase: "reproductive value is highest" lacks
> > rigor, yet the entire argument depends on it.

> NAS:-
> Apologies for not defining every single term that I use. I have
> assumed some basic familiarity with evolutionary concepts.
> Reproductive value is well defined, and is a key player in the
> evolution of senescence, so I thought it unnecessary to go into more
> detail.

JE:-
Do you mean sbe reader's must assume
the gene centric concept of "reproductive value"
(a gene frequency count at just any point in time)
when such a concept only represents a non
testable to refutation, misused model? This is
because within population genetics the term "frequency"
only ever represents a relative fitness proportion
(please refer to posts from Dr O'Hara and Dr Hoelzer
defining this misuse) and not an absolute fitness
total. Only totals are testable to refutation.
You cannot deduce these missing totals from
just a proportion (a comparitive result between
at least two totals).

I have defined "reproductive value" as a testable to
refutation Darwinian maximand: the total number of
fertile forms reproduced into one population
by each parent and described an experiment necessary
to test it to refutation. You have admitted that the
gene centric concept of "reproductive value" does
not represent a testable maximand. Given these basic
facts why should sbe readers have to assume just
the gene centric misused definition of "reproductive
value"?



> NAS:-
> I am astonished that, amidst all the wooly group selectionist thinking
> which is flying around this thread, I am being accused of lack of
> rigour.

JE:-
What do YOU mean by group selection? The idea
is certainly not "wooly" but the common
Neo Darwinist impression of it most certainly
is. Group selection is testable to refutation
if you define it to mean: the total number of groups
reproduced from each grouped parental selectee within
one metapopulation of such selectees

> NAS:-
> I do not deny that group selection could have selected for
> individuals to die so as to not cause a drain of resources for the
> community, however I do know that such careless appeals to group
> selection can be extremely misleading.

JE:-
Please outline a _rigorous_ argument
that you think justifies: "group selection
could have selected for individuals to
die so as to not cause a drain of resources
for the community" and contrast it to
any non group selective argument for the
same event.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
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 10/21/04 9:48:54 AM