In fact they are highly theoretical. Mayr attempts to make the transition by use of inclusive fitness but he acomplishes this not by use of the "fact" of evolution so-callled but by a 'fact' Darlington made which served to reorient his interpretation of the "Morgan" school (Sturtevant,Morgan,myGrandfather,etc) seperating biology no matter the theory into proximate and ultimate divisions. Mayr generalized from some disagreements resolved on his view of theory to the actual state of inclusive fitness in primates and he did this by noticing logically where natural selection does NOT occur, rather than using the relevance of this suspicion not in th exclusion of logical contents but as a place of possible non-dynamic research. Somehow scholars such as these associated "determinism" with NOT very high probability as a mistake. That was very theoretical and not at all how people think about it on a day to day basis. Sorry for being so technical.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-23-2005 08:52 AM
™ Version 4.2
