Darwin's Finite Domain of Truth: references needed

Skip to first unread message

Jim McGinn

Feb 28, 2004, 1:18:14 PM2/28/04
> 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


> 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?


> 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.

This reads like typical Edserian nonsense. Let me make
a suggestion. Instead of blathering on with technical
sounding terminology that means nothing to anybody but
yourself, why don't you provide an example.

> 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.


> 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 references. Well, what are you waiting for?


Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages