The natural principle encapsulated within the concept AEVASIVE

AEVASIVE implicitly refers to a natural principle, and tendency inherent in
all normal (and in most abnormal) individuals. More precisely, it is an in
evloutionary reality "adaptation attracting" principle that fundamentally
helps to_explain_ how and why evolution on this planet has resulted in that
we humans are the most characteristic and extreme example of this
"particular principle of psychobiophysiological patterning'.

[Hence the principle can also be described as: a not so strange "strange
attractor".]

AEVASIVE also encapsulates a definition of the kind of genophenotype that
this evolutionary patterning-principle tends to produce within any
biosphere; That is, the principle that AEVASIVE implies will inevitably and
actually 'be at work' during the phylogeny of any fauna within *every*
Earth-like biosphere *even if*, by chance (e.g. by a string of unusually
unfortunate astrophysical disruptions of the "AEVASIVE phenotype producing"
trend), a species _as AEVASIVE as ours_ would not result.

With the use of a few mathematical symbols the principle might be put as:

O [for "Opportunity type evolutionary pressure(s)"]

"INVERTED U" [-- since no ASCI character]

S [for "selective Hibernation imploring type" Adversity (naturally
'pruning') type evolutionary pressure(s)]

~~> [=approximate vector]

"ambi-advantageously" (correspondingly) adapted genophenotypes.

---
End of 'equation'
---
Here is a fuller, more verbose, definition:

When, as commonly and with significant frequency occurs, one or more
"evolutionary Opportunity" (what "exerts _opportunity type_ evolutionary
pressure")

[O being broadly definable as: _One or more common or frequent environmental
feature(s) - figuring
in the life-time of individuals - that, given a prerequisite
"intrinsic (individual) *genophenotyping* patterning potential" (_intrinsic_
evolutionary Opportunity) and a
preexisting (already genotyped and phenotyped) capacity to take survival
promoting/reproductive advantage of examples {members} of the same category
{IE, IOW, one of two didactically dichetomized into 'concEPTual existence'
super sets} of *evolution causing factors*]

COINCIDES with a "selective Hibernation imploring type" situation (or thus
significantly influential environmental 'setting'), THE COMBINED naturally
selective pressure does on the whole tend to favor the survival and
evolutionary success of sonme (CORRESPONDINGLY) "AMBI-ADVANTAGEOUSLY
adaptive"
mutations and ditto (ambi-advantageously) adapted genophenotypes.

We are the most AEVASIVEly behaving and 'equipped' outcome of this
principle is us!

P




"John Edser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >MT:-
> >I was wondering, why does the North American accent (mainstream, not
> >ebonics) differ so much from the British? when you look at other
> >countries like New Zealand or Australia, you can clearly see a British
> >element to their accent. So why does the North American accent differ
> >so much from the other Anglo-occupied countries?
>
> JF:-
> The explanation is obviously that the British consume lots of marmite,
> and the Australians have a counterpart, vegemite.  As Canadians and
> Americans aren't into either, their accent has diverged.  Thus the
> correlation is perfect, indicating that we need look no further for
> an explanation.  The argument is just as strong as many of those advocated
> on this newsgroup as explaining evolution of various traits.
>
> JE:-
> "Explaining evolution of various traits" is sailing
> very close to discussing causation within the sciences; something
> you suggested you would never do. I think everybody agrees that
> a correlation is not a theory of cause and affect. Science only
> uses correlations to inspire the inductive invention of theories
> of causation. Sir Karl Popper simply suggested that all suggested
> causative theories must provide valid points of refutation
> as well as valid points of verification (here valid means logically
> possible). If you suggest that marmite and vegemite are causative
> to accents then you have created a theory of causation.
> The problem is, you have not provided a single point of
> refutation for that theory even if "the correlation is perfect,
> indicating that we need look no further for
> an explanation ". Thus the theory is not rejected
> because you only suggested it as a joke, but because zero points
> of refutation were presented. The same problem exists within
> the _consistent_ misuse of over simplified models within evolutionary
> that are used to contest and win against the theory they were
> simplified from (which of course is just an absurdity),
> e.g. Hamilton's rule. Hamilton's thinking entirely dominates
> evolutionary theory, to this very day. I have asked, for over
> four years, for points of refutation to be provided for Hamilton's
> proposed selective road map. None have ever been provided, by yourself
> or anybody else here.
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> John Edser
> Independent Researcher
> PO Box 266
> Church Pt
> NSW 2105
> Australia
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>