(Daniel Davies wrote)
> If Wilson's book is to be a standalone entity, taken outside the context
> of
> > the surrounding literature, then you can't claim that terms are "used"
> just
> > because Wilson uses them.
>
I never said anything like that. You don't get it, do you? The terms under discussion (altruism, selfishness, genetic fitness etc.) are fundamental technical terms in evolutionary biology. They're standard concepts for Darwinism _in general_ (i.e. not particular to sociobiology). If you want to talk about evolution, you need to use these terms. It's the established technical vocabulary. In this context Wilson was an example. Any other biologist would have done equally well. They all have to use them when discussing certain things. That was the whole point of my simple and somewhat peripheral query to Carrol - he said they were 'useless for .. biological analysis.' I've never noticed Carrol make elementary gaffes, so he must have meant something else. So I asked.
Repeating, it's technical vocabulary, right? It's broadly used. This is a fact. There's no point arguing with me about it. If you want to argue with me, you can rephrase your original post to show precisely what aspects of Darwinism you consider refuted by the existence of the demographic shift. Because there isn't any such refutation.