Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 10:37:41 -0600
From: Lisa Rogers <EQDOMAIN.EQWQ.LROGERS-AT-EMAIL.STATE.UT.US>
Subject:  individual vs gene ? w/PS on posting quotes


I am sorry that I do not understand Paul's arguments, but to the
extent that I do follow him, I think his points do not have the
implications that he draws from them.

An analytical focus upon the individual is practically a hallmark of
evolutionary ecology, but I'm not aware of any quarrel we have with
population genetics.  As I've tried to explain, neo-darwinism finds
no conflict between the two, and there is no need to place them in
mutually exclusive opposition to each other.  Instead,
[dialectically?] each informs the other, and neo-darwinism includes
both.  

Each approach may be better suited to certain types of questions, but
I think we all share the same darwinism, and we find no contradiction
between pop.gen. view of genes and EE view of individuals.  (I think
that Dawkins would agree with me, BTW.)

"Process without a subject" ?  I have no idea what that means.

"non-monotonic fitness function" ?  The only thing I recall you
concluding from your example is that some kind of polymorphic
equilibrium results, so again I don't know what you mean; how is the
"contradiction" that you mention different from sickle-cell example?

Haplo/diploidy does not affect the definition of an individual
organism that I know of.

I also don't see a response to my points about non-abstract
individual organisms on the ground being the only things that
literally reproduce genes.  They physically duplicate the genes
within them, literally inserting copies of those [one's own] genes
into the bodies of offspring.  In your view, Paul, is this not a
salient point to the issue of "real"-ness of individuals and
understanding the action of selection, etc?

Selection/evolution acts upon genes by acting upon bodies.  The two
are inseparable.

Cheers,
Lisa Rogers

>>> Paul Cockshott <wpc-AT-clyder.gn.apc.org>  8/2/95, 01:44pm >>>
P.S. 
Paul's post is snipped, in the interest of non-duplication!! because
anyone following this thread has already seen Paul's post!!  I refer
to his points within the body of my own reply!!  

Please, everybody, consider this method so that there is less waste
of members' time, money and frustration with
dupli-dupli-dupli-dupli-cation.

Everybody may forget sometimes to zap a previous post from the bottom
of one's reply, but there has been an awful rash of total quoting
lately, where it looked more intentional (but not necessarily
thoughtful).

Collectively, we are the list.  Can we self-organize in the interests
of each other/ourselves/the collective?  There is no authority here
who is going to pre-screen and trim your posts for you in the
interest of the greater good.

lisa



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

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