Bugsy, you're so quick to criticize!

Metaphysics is totally applicable to science; evolution theory definitely is philosophy, as is physics.

I am happy with the concept of natural selection. My point is that it is generally looked at from the perspective of the individual, when the drivers behind it can equally well be looked at from the collectivist perspective. Both is true, but neither is true to the exclusion of the other. (Just thought I'd repeat myself because you didn't seem to think about what I wrote before you criticized me in your last post.)

Peter Hume wrote, "Grand schemes, and evolutionary schemata, are no good unless they can accurately take account of how they arise out of individual actions. In evolutionary theory, there is a need to understand the actions of individual organisms at the margins of subsistence. In economics, there is a need to understand individual actions dealing with individual units of resources at the margins of utility.

This is not to belittle the importance of groups, collectives, associations, societies. But to understand them first and foremost from the point of view of collectives, rather than the individual bodies that comprise them, is like trying to understand the heavens first and foremost as constellations."

In my opinion, it's not first and foremost from the point of view of collectives, but equally from the collective and the individual perspective.

The assertion of the individual perspective, across a range of subjects (as you do) is what has been done by the dominant paradigm of the last 400 years. Time for a shift.

Gilbert Holmes,

You said, "Bugsy, you're so quick to criticize!
Metaphysics is totally applicable to science, evolution theory definitely is philosophy, as is physics."

You seem to identify yourself as a "metaphysical philosopher " in the same manner as Adrian Mole identified himself as an "intellectual".

Where does the genetic mutation occur? It occurs in one of the many systems that comprise a particular biological individual. It doesn't occur spontaneously in the "collective" sense. It is passed on genetically to the next generation from that one individual, and so on and so on.

Poirot,

"You seem to identify yourself as a "metaphysical philosopher " in the same manner as Adrian Mole identified himself as an "intellectual"."

I am sure Adrain has some good quotes. I earn my income as a carpenter, so in order to sound intellectually impressive, and hopefully convince myself one day that I can take myself seriously, I need to use a title that few people understand.

"Where does the genetic mutation occur? It occurs in one of the many systems that comprise a particular biological individual. It doesn't occur spontaneously in the "collective" sense."

No, but the pattern of the environment (the collective) will determine which mutations are successful. Using Darwin's famous example, in an area where there was a lot of industrial pollutants being released into the atmosphere, darkening the sky, darker winged moths were less visible to predation from below than their lighter winged cousins. This encouraged a significant darkening of the moth species' wings over just a few generations. Before the arrival of the industrial revolution, the dark-wing mutation would have been hunted down and destroyed.

"There can be no fundamental separateness which goes beyond an individuals physical and biological dimensions."

As I tried to suggest previously, our motivations as separate conscious organisms have a physical aspect, leading us toward sensual pleasure: to eat, lie in the sunlight etc, as well as a mental aspect: toward being in control or our circumstances rather than frightened. (leads to competitive relationships, pecking orders, heirarchies)

Likewise our motivations as organisms that exist within a connected community have dual, more physical and more mental aspects: toward empathy instead of isolation (physical) and toward what is fair instead of unfair (mental).

Gilbert,

You have an enquiring mind, which is already "impressive".

I suppose the Adrian Mole quip came across as a put down. What I meant was that Adrian "was intelligent", but he gave himself the title to enhance the notion in his own mind - as you have done - and fair enough.
I see nothing to stop you making a philosophical breakthrough - except that you seem to disdain and reject the ideas of those who may be more knowledgeable than you in "certain areas". As if you yourself possess the be all and end all of knowledge in those areas. (It's something we're all guilty of at times, but then most of us don't profess to be philosophers). Your attitude to Bugsy is a case in point (he obviously knows a thing or two about science). You dismiss him as being "quick to criticize". You seem to make light of historically recognised "great minds" as if they were somehow slip-shod and careless. You did it with Marx and now you're doing it with Darwin.
A little deference wouldn't go astray.

"The assertion of the individual perspective, across a range of subjects (as you do) is what has been done by the dominant paradigm of the last 400 years. Time for a shift."

No Gilbert, individuals are where many scientists, especially in ecology are only starting to study a lot more. In ecology I think you will find holistic viewpoints trying to make sense of such things as 'communities' and 'populations' the 'environment' organisms live in etc, all those seaparate ideas you lump under 'collective' or 'collectivist', have actually been around for a long time. Try and go and look at some of the older ecology literature. Perhaps some reviews. It's only recently really that individuals have really been focussed on, but mostly they aren't, at least in that field. Even population genetics doesn't focus on indviduals.

There is no new paradigm here. I can understand that you don't know a lot about what is going on in current or possibly even relatively recent science, as there is a LOT going on, so much so that no one person can cover it. I struggle to keep up myself.

But as a personal philosophy, sure why not?. I've seen a lot worse. But if you really want some rough an tumble and to have your ideas challenged, submit a paper to your favourite philosphy journal. I'm sure they will tell you what you need to know in no uncertain terms.

But only one piece of unsolicited advice: when it gets rejected, edit it with the reviewers comments and resubmit (possibly to another journal). Repeat as necessary. You may not get it published, but you'll learn a whole lot more than on internet forums.

the dueality of evolution comes from those who know
only knowing.. the facts within their ..narrow area of experteaze

we have had here experts on eucalyptus genetics for egsample
KNOW all about eucalypts...but when pressed to trace the eucalyptus BACK to its 'evolution'...the macro part of the story of evolution falls appart

SEE micro-evolution...{WITHIN the genus...say of eucalyptus]
begins and ends with the eucalypt genus

MACRO-evolution ..where something NOT eucalypt
IS CLAIMED to have micro-evolved
ITS...macro evolution...INTO eucalypt
is completly theoretical...

UNABLE TO BE NAMED
unable to be found ...LET ALONE REPLICATED
thus is not science

and certainly ...not
THE NEEDED MACRO-evolution
as NEEDS be PROVED..

but hasnt

you have fallen into the trap
much as i did 30 years ago
[i did it via pigeons
thats how i found darwin]

in time i also found gregor mendel...and mendelic inheritors
[that do not have evolution as a choice ..on the mendelic ratios]

yes greggor did his RESEARCH with peas
BUT lets FACE simple FACTS
PEAS ONLY BREED PEAS

humans only breed huh?-mans
fruit-flies only breed fruitflies
[ARE YOU SEING A PATTERN HERE?]

dogs breeed dogs
catus genus only breed CATS
life COMES only from LIFE

we been decieved
by a THEORY masked as science
a NEO[new] religeon...with its own faithfull faithless..

[athiests] ..needing a god free THEORY...!
to keep the religious FAITH ..in peers ..going
as the religious parradime COLLAPSES

thus we were taught the lie...as children

recall your questions at the time
the teacher said in time you would know
but NO ONE does know

no one can PROVE the macro-evolution
no one has observed it
no one can replicate it

its NOT a science
CAUSE ITS A THEORY

REVEAL the warm/blood ,..cold blood micro change
that turned a fish ..into a warm blood fury animal

cant be validated ..by science method
thus IT NEVER HAPPEND