RE: sci.bio.evolution mailing list

> > When studying human sexual instincts, and sexual selection, many books,
when
> > explaining one method by which one sex tries to outwit the other,
explain
> > that it is in the interest of the other to develop a counter strategy.
It's
> > nearly always there and the books tend to rattle off the appropriate
> > developments in the other sex. When thinking about this, and how the
> > appropriate counter instincts are oftern there, can't help thinking that
> > this strongly hints towards the latter of the two in the debate, (The
side
> > Dawkins slightly favours).
> > Thoughts?

JE:-
Van Valen's view of competition as just war,
dominates Neo Darwinism, even today. War is
not the point of competition within nature it
is just a failure of the human mind to see
competition within nature as a way to cooperate.
In Darwinian terms, BOTH sexes compete against each
other but must cooperate with each other
to produce any offspring at all, let alone
raise them to fertile adulthood. Thus cooperation
and competition are not necessarily opposed
within Darwinian evolutionary theory but they
mostly are within Neo Darwinian evolutionary
theory, e.g. Dawkins genes only competing against and
not complimenting organism level selection when
forcing organism fitness altruism. I propose that
Darwinian competition is also a form of cooperation
which produces what I term: fitness mutualisation.
Here competition produces absolute fitness benefits
at just a relative fitness cost where these benefits
are not necessarily equal.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

[EMAIL PROTECTED]