I agree with you here more than Quetzal post
message33but seeing as how I am being asked to write things in plainer speech elsewhere (I will),
that said, I am tempted in this discussion to pull together all the biophilosophy on classes and individuals, so as to speak to the phrase for instance "how natural selection shapes them today" etc, as the point of individuality is that of existence in a bound space and time and mere assertion of individuality is a sign of Darwinian thinking
prima facie. If one is to be clear NOT to overstate/overgeneralize/oversocialize evolutionary biology initially
it seems to me NECESSARY to operate in the thread with the word "individual" lightly (and this would be less or not a problem if the question was on the lowest initial level of discussion that this thread started out on) because the relation of homology and analogy get difficult to keep univocal when ANY kind of organ
vs tissue is being received by the individual as constituitive.
Let me see first if I am at the point under discussion. We are talking NOT about genetic differences in lineages (sufficiently) but about the individuality of organ formation IN INDIVIDUALS over geological time? If one had already vested interests in Organacism(as to concepts of emergence etc) as opposed to more narrow molecular approaches then one can use the word "individual" as if it was scientific without realizing the "appearence from the outside"(opps I started to get opaque). That is included because I might understand what Quetzal is saying too but I just am not as sure.
Ok,so Wilson said it. I saw Q mention that before. Big Deal. There are ecologists who worked with my grandfather who are still alive and dont believe any of Sociobiology and even wrote a textbook"Field Biology" in which that was said. The original poster said that the thread raised MORE questions and I dont see any change in this state since my last post on this thread.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-19-2005 07:57 AM