``...The point being simply this - you say the terms are 'useless' , but they are extensively used in the literature (e.g. a whole chapter titled Group Selection and Altruism in the text above) and indeed seem pivotal concepts. Useless, then, in what way?..'' Eric Leher
------------
If you believe any of this stuff, you might want to reflect on the possibly that others, don't. Just because it's in print and called biology or science, doesn't make it so. Appeal to authority doesn't cut it.
Just start with the definition, ``the surrender of personal genetic fitness for the enhancement of personal genetic fitness in others''. Personal isn't the only loaded word in that sentence. Surrender? Fitness? Enchancement? Others? The only non-controversial words in that sentence are the articles.
In the past, in other sciences there were great philosophical debates that went on for decades before some of the words and concepts were ever considered well understood and accepted. That is not the case here.
If you want, why don't you post an article or put up a url and let's go into this.
Chuck Grimes