OK, yesterday you won by evolution by making the "most copies".
Today the goal is "someone who produced as many offspring as he could successfully rear to a condition where they were capable of doing the same."
Which has been what I have been saying all along: the point is the capacity of a gene to persist, not just making the "most copies". If this was what David meant the whole time, fine. But it's not what he had said.
Posts
Regression to the mean
2 weeks ago
What's most frustrating is that this is exactly the dimension I've been challenging David on since the beginning of the discussion. I have not been subtle about the problem I saw with simply talking about making copies at a high rate - there was no ambiguity about what my criticism of that was. But as far as I can tell this is the first time he's elaborated on it - basically making the same point I have been.
ReplyDeleteBut then I get dumped on and lectured to.
Swell. That's enough for me, thanks.
FWIW, at first I thought you were crazy for challenging him, but then halfway through that post I understood the distinction you were making.
ReplyDeleteAs I have pointed out in response to several of your other posts, I included rearing the offspring to the point where they could in turn reproduce in the initial post that started this discussion.
ReplyDelete