Re: Can cognition override natural selection?

> GH:-
> So, in sum, I see no problem the
> consistency of my arguments against Dawkins' geneism-only views and
> Hamilton's or Wilson's view that selection can happen at the level of the
> gene.

PF:-
Do these guys *really* think that anything but a for biology very basic
chemical "selection" [in this case one potentially phenotyping molecule
proving more stable (against adverse physical pressures/influences (both
intrinsic and extrinsic such) than another] happens at the level of the
gene!?

JE:-
The researcher's above just delete genomic gene fitness
epistasis. Epistasis  means _more_ than one gene
contributes to a _single_ heritable phenotype, which 
in this instance is one genomic genes fitness. 
Neo Darwinian gene centric fitness is the number 
of exact gene replicates each gene leaves of itself over 
organism generations of that gene. "Epistatic genomic
fitness" means that the fitness of at least _two_ 
genes within an organism are  required just to calculate 
one single  gene's fitness, i.e. gene fitnesses are all
_dependent_ fitnesses. In _nature_, each supposed,
separate gene fitness is actually fitness epistatic to 
every other gene in just one selected genome. This
simply means that all the genes in one genome
are actually selected using the same, SINGLE, _organism_ 
fitness. Thus, the view that a single genomic gene fitness
can contest and win against a Darwinian organism
fitness (the total number of fertile forms reproduced
by a parent) is just nonsense. For single genes to 
be able to compete and win against Darwinian organism
fitnesses, single genomic Neo Darwinian gene fitnesses 
must be _independent_. This means they must form additive
fitness associations. Not a single genomic gene additive
fitness association has ever been documented in nature.
So what is going on? Fisher's simplified model of evolution
has replaced the one testable theory of biological 
reality that we have: the Darwinian THEORY of evolution.
This was done in order to accommodate Mendel's genes within
a Darwinian **MODEL**. Because of a lack of epistemological
rigor, the model was made to compete against the theory
it was just an over simplification, from. Using Hamilton's
rule it is easy to see that this process deleted constants.
If you delete or change any constant you entirely change
a view, so the misconception that these simplified models
did not change testable reality is entirely erroneous. Models
are important and valid ways to help test and understand
the theory they were simplified from. Over the years
they have been consistently _misused_ to compete and
win against that theory, i.e. their misuse was absurd.
This is obvious to many biologists but not to many 
evolutionary theorists because, more often than not, 
the most prominent of them are not biologists.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

[EMAIL PROTECTED]







i.e. all gene fitnesses observed
within nature, up to this very day, are 
fitness epistatic (