Subject:     	 Re: Q. on Penrose arg: why new *physics*?
From:         	Phil Roberts, Jr.
Message: 	33e9de9h

JRStern wrote:
> wrote:
>>JRStern wrote:
>>> 
>>> Then get another theory, one that at least allows for variation.
>>> 
>>
>>What did you have in mind in lieu of the theory of natural selection?
>>
>
>There are well developed theories which allow for altruism.

What follows is from a previous post.  Hopefully, you
can supply a few sources of your own.......authors you believe
to have refuted what most evolutionists take as gospel at this
juncture:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -

Ah yes. The group selection thing. Well, according to Hamilton's calculus,
if we should see it anywhere in mammalia we should see it in siblings, 
where DNA is likely to be 50%.  But have you ever watched how the runt
of the litter is treated.  This whole matter has been endlessly debated 
and, as I say, I prefer to defer to Dawkins and those sociobiologist in 
basic agreement with his position: 

Quotes:

The identification of individuals as the unit of
selection is a central theme in Darwin's thought.
This idea underliees his most radical claim: that 
evolution is purposeless and without inherent 
direction. ... Evolution does not recognize the 'good'
of the ecosystem' or even the 'good of the species.'
Any harmony or stability is only an indirect result of 
individuals relentlessly pursuing their own self-interest 
-- in modern parlance, getting more of their genes into 
future generations by greater reproductive success.  
Individuals are the unit of selection; the "struggle 
for existence" is a matter among individuals (Stephen
Gould).


_With very few exceptions_, the only parts of the theory
of natural selection which have been supported by 
mathematical models admit no possiblity of the 
evolution of any characters which are on average to
the disadvantage of the individuals possessing them.
If natural selection followed the classical models
exclusively, species would not show any behavior more 
positively social than the coming together of the 
sexes and parental care (W. D. Hamilton)


Like successful Chicago gangsters, our genes have 
survived, in some cases for millions of years, in 
a highly competitive world.  This entitles us to 
expect certain qualities from our genes.  I shall
argue that a predominant quality to be expected in 
a successful gene is _ruthless_selfishness_ [meta-
phorically] (Dawkins).


Even with qualifications regarding the possibility 
of group selection, the portrait of the biologically 
based social personality that emerges is one of 
predominantly self-serving opportunism _even_for_
_the_most_social_species_, for all species in which 
there is genetic competition among the social co-
operators, that is, where all members have the chance 
of parenthood (Donald Campbell).

(END QUOTES)

The notable exceptions are the social insects, but 
that's because the workers are dependent on the queen
for their DNA perpetuation.  Yep.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

By the way, there is a symposium in 'The Behavioral and Brain Sciences'
(1994, 17) on the resurgence of the group selection thesis.  Dennett, Campbell
and Dawkins are unanimously unimpressed.  That doesn't prove they are
right, but it should certainly give one pause, don't you agree?


-- 

               Phil Roberts, Jr.

Feelings of Worthlessness from the Perspective 
     of So-Called Cognitive Science
  http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5476