> is this really the case? you mention "genetic fitness". but the
> father of the theory, charles darwin, who wrote the definitive
> book "origin of species" was unaware of the existence of genes,
> wasnt he? the term "genetic" does not need the concept of a
> "gene", i guess, but has it not been stated in the history of
> evolutionary biology that unlike mendel, darwin did not say
> much about this? perhaps referring to darwin is inappropriate?
> any modern text on evolutionary biology, which restates and
> expands on darwin's original work, will no doubt rely
> on the notion of genes and genetic fitness. but once again i am
> not sure that terms such as altruism or selfishness are
> fundamental... it seems to me that one can construct a fairly
> good description of evolution without these terms. perhaps i
> should try to do so, in order to convince myself that such is
> not the case?
>
Sorry Ravi, small slips of the pen can give rise to great errors. I
mean, you are right about Darwin not knowing about genetics. So
technically I should have written Neo-Darwinism, i.e. the theory of
natural selection plus its essential genetic mechanics tacked on
post-Darwin.
So I meant Darwinism as understood today, not Darwinism as Darwin wrote it.
Darwin's theory rested on the inheritance of (non-acquired) characteristics. In other words it needs an understanding of genetics in order to approach completeness.
You are right, it's sloppy usage, but 'Darwinism' nowadays often refers to Neo-Darwinism. You're spot on when you say:
> any modern text on evolutionary biology, which restates and
> expands on darwin's original work, will no doubt rely
> on the notion of genes and genetic fitness.
>
And that was what I meant.
As for whether you can construct a good description of evolution without the notions of selfishness or altruism ... I guess it depends at what level of generality you pitch things. You can summarize the theory of evolution in one sentence without referring to these things. But as you examine particular patterns of animal behaviour, it seems not. A more accurate way of putting it would have been to say that altruism / selfishness as technically defined are central to an understanding of ethology.
I'm not a biologist, Ravi, so the most respectful thing I can say is, if you're genuinely interested then read as much as you can about it, preferably something reasonably technical - popularizations help you get interested in something but ultimately cloud your ability to think because they are only approximations. The metaphors interfere with your understanding, and make for dumb (or, in actuality, non-) arguments (witness most of this thread) over fuck-all. You're intelligent, open-minded, and able to read properly and formulate accurate questions; you do not misrepresent your opponents in argument, and (rare, this) are apparently not ego-driven. In other words I'm sure you won't have too many problems with it and will resolve it to your own satisfaction.
As for those of you who lack these qualities, and who are too dishonest to address what I have actually written recently (as opposed to those parts of what I initially wrote in haste, and subsequently disowned) ... well, just keep on preaching to the converted. You obviously enjoy it.
Unsubbing from here in,
Eric
PS Chuck, I owe you a post re Wilson - off list.