(better structure will occurr in response to AZPaul as I will be following Gould not myself thereat)
If that
quote:
Hamilton, Dawkins, et al. have argued that genes can be quite strategic in their adaptations for survival, even to the extent of demonstrating altruistic determinsim. So, individual survival may NOT be the real focus of natural selection;
is the case then YOUR MODEL possess tons of teleology that needs to be explained away where there adaptive fit is no longer tolerated. If “the genes” (“their adaptations”) have the property of ”being adapted’ in the design of any determinism you claim to name then what is the specific biophysics (chemical bond forces etc and where to directed . ) within the ”copy’ and that without it. As soon as there is an external/outside space/place of the adaptation, certainly some entities are more fit and have less tolerance than others . there is an aspect/property of said gene that no matter the strategy or altruism projected within (like in geometry where one determines an angle and triangle etc) by NOT within and THIS is teleological and goal directed if the selection is made artifical with respect to the individual no matter the actual copy number, as would occur in the small, nanotechnically in the future etc, should such be.
This view is myopic.
If it is not a shortcut then show me some diagram/design which displays in all the Dawkins’ engineering rigor what forces create what GENEadaptation and to what geometrical space is the dimension of this??
I do not come from the perspective that alternatives to Dawkins’ view needs to be explained but that Dawkins’ view IS THE atlternative, that is how it read simply and completely to me the very first time I read his work etc. and RD thus needs to carry the burden of proof not the passed on and taught thought of evolution itself. That is why I made a short cut through international takes on the topic.
In Post 55 you had
quote:
Since no individual survives long enough to actually experience NS, then the operational site of NS must be somewhere or something else.
but this statement or sentence shows less filiation to the heritage of statistics in biology (large or small population) then it does to value in the place of a world of facts. There is *some* number of events actually but one can know what 2/3 or something is before one has a reliable estimate of actual quantity.
This kind or reasoning may have effected me in the early days of posting on EvC but as nanotechnology developed an emboldened confidence in the past few years it became clear to me that given something like Wolfram’s ideas applied it would, on those ideas, be possible to alter the praxis that NS traditionally denotes. Dawkins can only tilt this windmill to the future. I need simple sit back on my haunch and hunches/lunch.
I have NO interest in evolution if it is not about individuals. The world would sooner die of religious warfare than that reality exist, it seems to me. The problem is my horizon already formed, functionalism can not alter it.
Sayins such as Moduluous’(post 63)
quote:
No individual will survive. The only thing that survives are the genes (until universal extinction of course).
overdetermines THE FORM.
It is precisely with issues of form that creationism can be put to bed so IF it is evc then evos should not try to have their cake so that they can eat something else instead.
What is going on here is that one goes beyond the notion of science to one of operationalism or practicalism but this is really an aspect of technology not biology say sensu stricto. It occurs from a particular philosophy about probabilisms but assumes rather than historicizes the contingency between environment and organism. There IS ALWAYS an external to this view.
So now all we can have is the “math” of the ”unit’ , let it come forth.
The problem reared it’s sleepy head when Mod wrote
quote:
Yes - but not all phenotypical characteristics are hereditry.
in post 71. As long a this can be formally imagined there is some position beyond the genes involved but from a nexus of form this only need be conceptualized rather than algorithmized as would be incumbent on those doing the book keeping.
It can never be said that a biologist can not use non-adaptive charcters to become adaptive in AN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY of tommarrow, but because there is not as intricate a community of pure and pratical biologists as there are physicists biology lacks the momentum in this regard that physics HAS, so, the debate force of Mod position is weakened and ineffectual for debate even though it may not alter one side or the other’s privately.
Again if the gene eyepoint of view is true, then what are the biophysics of genes’ adaptations for programmed cell death for instance? Functional notions of copy number, “cooperation” and assorted functionalism need to be explained not sequentially but form by form. Who can do this? Did Hamilton??
™ Version 4.2
