"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:avnski$au5$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
>
>
> "Peter F"  wrote:-
>
> PF:-
> Has it ever occurred to you all (but John in particular) that adaptations
> are aspects of phenotypes; And that these adaptations inseparably relate
to
> always _life-situational_ events, circumstances, or features of
phylogenetic
> environments [or simply "situations", for want of a less
weedy vocabulary]
> that impact on and involve individuals *in all phases of ontogenetic
> expression*!?
>
> JE:-
> Of course you are correct and I doubt that
> anybody here would disagree with you, however
> such a general proclamation is like seriously
> suggesting motherhood is a good thing. I think
> we all agree it is a good thing but this
> cannot explain why some females are not
> mothers.
>
> I am the first to chastise those who fail
> to make valid inductive inferences, but
> once they are made the HARD work has
> to be done re: their analysis. It is no
> good Peter, just sitting on top of your
> EAIMC mountain contemplating your
> navel. You have to get of your bum, grab
> a shovel and work your way down this mountain
> describing exactly what you see around you
> i.e. how these parts fit into your EAIMC
> whole in a testable way. This is all I
> am doing.
>
> My mountain is Darwinism and
> Hamilton's view is entirely a sub set
> of Darwinism, i.e. a small hill near the bottom.
> The model builders, who toil at the foot of
> Darwin's mountain never lift their eyes upwards
> so they make fundamental errors. However, this
> is not as bad as just contemplating your
> navel at the top of the mountain! Deductive
> errors are easily corrected if integrity
> remains paramount. You have to have
> courage to toil away on a mountain only
> to find dirt. It is no good just saying
> where the gold _may_ be. Gold in the ground
> is worthless. You have to actually do the
> work of digging it up, removing countless
> tons of dirt in the process.
>
> PF:-
> Fecundity as a effect of fittness is also fine, BUT ONLY when figured to
be
> more a 'fragment of a flat projection of evolution as a four-dimensional
> full-bodied space-time sphere' than a philosophical and theoretical end in
> itself!
>
> JE:-
> Peter, stop just contemplating your navel.
> Explain to me EXACTLY where and how fecundity
> fits in to your view of evolution.

What is "exact enough" for you may not be exact enough for anyone else. In
fact "exact" for the case you espouse might not even have an
extra ephemeral
existince in a 'platonic territory' [blue-print inventory in the sky :-)]!

However, for a lineage to persist (including by way of branching-off,
diverging, or speciating) the minimum reproductively successful population
required is (i.e., is for sexual reproducers) 1 female (pregnant with a male
foetus).

That is how "exact" (and simple) my individual-centric _Darwinian_ (~ from
Darwin's thinking descended) understanding of our evolution can be
boiled-down to be.

However, I seldom care to boil it down to that extent, because (and this is
very presonal) I don't like to evaporate-away too many
in-parallel-perceivable pixels and interlocking lines of "the larger
picture" (almost simultaneously perceivable and maintainable partly by
deliberately Employing a 'Principle of Tolerance aligned' intellectual
attitude).

I prefer an as rich and as wide and practically relevant view of things as
my mind can muster. Focusing too narrowly for too long makes be cognitively
claustrophobic!

Please note that I am "individual-centric", but NOT to the exclusion and
dogmatic denial of what is real and actual (or tolerably theoretical as far
as I can see and understand it), such as e.g. a realistic/common-sensical
interpretation of altruistic behaviour and 'group selecting' effects.

Best wishes,
Peter
---
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 1/13/03 12:22:07 PM