On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Eric Franz Leher wrote:
> I don't have time to make this as well-phrased as I'd like, but think of
> it like this: DD has essentially said that the demographic shift is
> maladaptive (i.e. those who engage in the behaviour characteristic of
> the demographic shift - less kids - will find their genes represented in
> the population in decreased frequency in the next generation)(and this
> is right, contrary to any comments I made otherwise).
>
> So far so good. The problem arises because it is then asserted that the
> existence of maladaptive behaviour refutes the theory. In other words:
> for the theory to make sense, only adaptive behaviour is permitted to
> take place.
>
> But this isn't correct. Genetic changes in behaviour (and physiology,
> etc) occur on a random basis. Such changes can turn out to be adaptive,
> maladaptive, or neutral in terms of their effects. Maladaptive change is
> not barred by the theory, it is very much a part of it.
>
> So no empirical difficulty actually exists here.
>
> Eric
>
So let me get this straight: any behavior that could plausibly be explained in terms of the theory (e.g., kin-based altruism) provides support for the theory, and any behavior that is inconsistent with the theory does not draw the theory into question, because some random changes can be maladaptive. In what sense is this a scientific theory susceptible to empirical test?
Miles