"Lennart Kiil"  wrote:
> References: 

> > MR:-
> > Darwin's theories of evolution didn't
> > incorporate Mendelian genetics, random genetic drift, kin selection,
> > group selection, etc. Now I'm not saying this means Darwin's theories
> > have been invalidated as a result. Indeed, they have been proven in
> > experiments. And to the best of my knowledge Mendelian genetics and
> > random genetic drift aren't incompatible with Darwin's theories. Kin
> > selection, however, appears to have a basis in some insect populations.
> > Hamilton is famous for this and developing an equation for it. Mr. Edser
> > finds no scientific-empirical basis for it. Nevertheless, kin selection
> > was not one of Darwin's theories on evolution although I believe he
> > commented on the phenomenon. Both kin selection and group selection have
> > been extended to human evolution by some scientists. Are they as
> > scientifically validated as Darwin's theory of natural selection
> > (individual selection), sexual selection, etc.? No, they aren't. They
> > are hypotheses rather than theories. All I'm saying is just because
> > Darwin didn't include group selection in his theories of evolution
> > doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

> LK:-
> Of course not.

JE:-
Darwin provided the only testable to refutation
theory of evolution that we have, to this very
day. Unless (like Dr Hoelzer) you simply throw out
basic Popperian refutation then the fact that
"kin selection and group selection have
been extended to human evolution by some
scientists" where however, this remains
entirely _outside_ of Darwinian theory
just results in the junking  of evolutionary
theory as  a valid _science_ because these
Neo Darwinistic views cannot be tested to
refutation.

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 10/28/04 6:18:33 AM