[FRIAM] individual vs group selection

[Santafe]

Steve G, I have a challenge for you:

For those outside the U.S., I apologize for the waste of your time I am about to commit.

In the early 1960s, there was a sit-com TV series starring Bob Denver called Gilligan’s Island.

On one of the episodes, there is a problem making a decision about something.  The scene unfolds with Gilligan (Denver) commenting, in series, that everyone who puts up the next disagreement with the foregoing speaker “has a good point”.  The Skipper, exasperated, shouts Gilligan, _everyone_ can’t have a good point!  To which Gilligan says Skipper has a good point.

I found the episode, but not the sequence as filmed.  My little recital here isn’t funny, but the original was.  If I could have put a link to the youtube clip, I would have done that instead and not said anything.  

That scene has been in my head in response to so many things over the past half-year or so.

On the other hand, I am happy to acknowledge that the GPT summary gathers a lot of things into one place, and does it a lot more compactly than I could.  Doesn’t hurt to have such summaries.

Eric



> On Aug 3, 2025, at 17:42, Pieter Steenekamp <pieters at randcontrols.co.za> wrote:
> 
> Since I’m a big fan of Dawkins, I wanted to respond thoughtfully to the criticisms he often faces. But I quickly realized I wasn’t quite up to the task—so I turned to George for help. You’ll find George’s full reply in the appendix. For ease of reading, I’m quoting only the conclusion here:
> 
> Richard Dawkins’ gene-centric view, far from being a “radical genism” that should be “stood off,” stands as a powerful and intellectually elegant framework for understanding evolution. By identifying the gene as the fundamental replicator, it offers a clear, consistent, and unifying perspective on the core mechanisms of natural selection. This approach has proven its explanatory power by illuminating phenomena such as altruism and the intricate design of organisms. Its elegance lies in unifying a wide range of observations under a single, coherent principle—a hallmark of robust scientific theory. While ongoing debates over levels of selection remain valuable, the gene’s-eye view provides a parsimonious and foundational lens for understanding evolutionary biology.
> 
> Beyond his theoretical contributions, Dawkins has also been a uniquely gifted and articulate advocate for evolutionary science. His ability to communicate complex ideas through vivid metaphors has inspired generations and significantly advanced public understanding of evolution. This talent for science communication complements, rather than competes with, the formalism of population genetics. His public engagement constitutes a vital contribution to science itself.
> 
> In sum, the continuing dialogue between gene-centric and multi-level selection theories—and between formal rigor and conceptual clarity—is not a sign of scientific weakness, but of strength. It reflects the dynamic, self-correcting nature of science. Through debate, interplay, and synthesis, our understanding of evolution deepens and evolves. That, in itself, is the essence of good science.
> 
> 
> Appendix, George's full response:
> 
>  
> A Friendly Defense of Richard Dawkins' Evolutionary Insights: Beyond Misconceptions
>  
> 
> I. Introduction: Setting the Stage for a Friendly Dialogue
>  
> 
> Evolutionary biology, far from being a static field, is a dynamic and evolving discipline that thrives on vigorous intellectual debate and the continuous refinement of ideas. The discussions surrounding Richard Dawkins' gene-centric view and its relationship to other perspectives, such as David Sloan Wilson's multi-level selection theory and Michael Lynch's emphasis on formal population genetics, are prime examples of this healthy scientific discourse. These aren't battles to be won, but ongoing conversations that deepen our collective understanding of life's complexity. The very existence of these debates signifies the robustness and self-correcting nature of the scientific enterprise. It demonstrates that evolutionary theory is not a rigid dogma but a flexible framework capable of incorporating new evidence and diverse analytical approaches.
> 
> Richard Dawkins' seminal 1976 work, The Selfish Gene, revolutionized popular and scientific understanding by advocating for a gene-centric view of evolution. This perspective argues that natural selection operates most fundamentally at the level of the gene, rather than solely at the level of the individual organism or species.1 Central to this view are the concepts of "replicators" and "vehicles." Genes are the "replicators" – the fundamental units of heredity that are copied with high fidelity across generations, striving for their own perpetuation.2 Organisms, including humans, are conceptualized as "vehicles" or "survival machines" – temporary biological constructs built by genes to ensure their replication and transmission to the next generation.2 Dawkins' primary contribution was a shift in explanatory perspective, providing a powerful lens through which to analyze evolutionary phenomena. This reorientation allowed for a more consistent and parsimonious understanding of how evolutionary forces shape life.
> 
> This report aims to clarify common misconceptions about Dawkins' work, demonstrating how his framework provides robust insights into evolutionary phenomena, including those that appear paradoxical, such as altruism. It will also explore the complementary roles of conceptual models and formal mathematical approaches in evolutionary biology, showing how Dawkins' contributions fit within this broader scientific landscape. This approach seeks to inform and clarify, fostering understanding rather than confrontation, and offering a friendly counter-narrative to the idea that his profound contributions have been "stood off."
> 
>  
> II. The Gene's-Eye View: Precision, Not Reductionism
>  
> 
>  
> 
> The "Selfish Gene" Explained: Clarifying the metaphorical nature of "selfishness" and the gene as the fundamental unit of selection.
>  
> 
> A frequent and understandable misunderstanding of Dawkins' work arises from the provocative title The Selfish Gene. It is crucial to recognize that Dawkins explicitly states that "selfish" is a metaphor, and he "does not intend to imply that they are driven by any motives or will".4 The term is a pedagogical device to convey that genes are the "ultimate, fundamental unit of natural selection".6 This means that alleles (different versions of a gene) whose phenotypic effects successfully promote their own propagation will, by definition, increase in frequency within a population over generations.7 The "selfishness" therefore refers to the
> 
> tendency of a gene to maximize its own replication, an impersonal, algorithmic outcome of natural selection, not a conscious intent or moral judgment.5 This metaphorical usage, despite its potential for misinterpretation, serves a vital conceptual purpose: it forces evolutionary biologists and the public to consider the gene as the primary unit of accounting in evolution. Its effectiveness lies in its ability to simplify complex dynamics into an intuitive framework that highlights the fundamental replicative imperative, thereby correcting prevalent "group selectionist" fallacies.6
> 
>  
> 
> Organisms as "Survival Machines": Elucidating the concept of "vehicles" and the "extended phenotype."
>  
> 
> Dawkins famously describes organisms, including human beings, as "survival machines" or "robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes".2 This perspective does not diminish the immense complexity, beauty, or emergent properties of living things; rather, it offers a powerful analytical lens through which to understand
> 
> why organisms are structured the way they are—as temporary, elaborate vessels for the propagation of genetic information.2 Furthermore, Dawkins later developed the concept of the "extended phenotype," arguing that a gene's phenotypic effects are not necessarily limited to the organism's physical body but can "stretch far into the environment, including the bodies of other organisms".4 This concept significantly broadens the explanatory reach of the gene-centric view, demonstrating its capacity to account for interactions beyond the individual organism. The "survival machine" metaphor, coupled with the extended phenotype, demonstrates that Dawkins' gene-centric view is not a crude reductionism that ignores complex interactions or emergent properties. Instead, it offers a causal framework for understanding how gene-level selection can manifest in intricate, multi-level biological phenomena, extending beyond individual bodies to influence the environment and other organisms.
> 
>  
> Explaining Altruism: Demonstrating how gene-level selection, particularly kin selection, elegantly accounts for cooperative behaviors.
>  
> 
> One of the most significant triumphs of the gene-centric view is its elegant explanation for altruism—behaviors that appear to decrease an individual's own fitness for the benefit of others.4 Dawkins, building upon the foundational work of W.D. Hamilton, demonstrates how altruistic acts directed towards relatives (known as kin selection) make perfect sense from a gene's perspective, as relatives are statistically likely to share copies of the same genes.2 This means that "selfish genes can program altruistic behavior in organisms".3 Furthermore, the concept of Evolutionarily Stable Strategies (ESS), developed by John Maynard Smith and popularized by Dawkins, provides a mathematical framework to predict how cooperative and competitive behaviors can arise and stabilize within populations, depending on the strategies adopted by the majority.6 The successful explanation of altruism, a behavior that initially appears to contradict individual-level natural selection, through a gene-level framework (kin selection) provides compelling evidence for the explanatory power and parsimony of Dawkins' approach. This demonstrates how a "reductionist" starting point can yield profound insights into complex social phenomena, showcasing its robustness against criticisms of oversimplification.
> 
>  
> Addressing "Radical Genism": Arguing that Dawkins' view is a powerful explanatory framework, not an oversimplification that ignores biological complexity.
>  
> 
> The "gene-centered view" is not, as some critics imply, a denial of the complexity of organisms or their intricate interactions. Dawkins himself acknowledges that "there is a very great deal of complication, and indeed beauty in being a gene machine".3 His framework provides a fundamental perspective on
> 
> what is ultimately being selected for over evolutionary time (the replicator), rather than claiming that genes operate in isolation.10 Indeed, genes "must interact well with the majority of the fellow gene travelers they meet in individual survival machines" 2 to ensure the survival and reproduction of the vehicle. The focus on the gene as the unit of selection provides a "simple, scalable metric: replicative fitness" 10, which is a powerful analytical tool for understanding evolutionary change, not a dismissal of other biological levels or their emergent properties. The criticism of "radical genism" often conflates the
> 
> unit of selection (the gene as the replicator) with the level of biological organization at which selection manifests (the organism or group). Dawkins' view clarifies that while selection acts on the phenotypic expression of vehicles (organisms, groups), the ultimate beneficiary and the entity that is faithfully copied and accumulates advantageous changes over generations is the gene. This distinction allows for a powerful, non-simplistic understanding of how complex systems arise from fundamental replicative dynamics, without reducing the complexity of those systems themselves.
> 
>  
> III. Dawkins and the Levels of Selection: A Nuanced Perspective
>  
> 
>  
> 
> The Core Debate with David Sloan Wilson: Delineating the differing perspectives on the unit of selection (gene-level vs. multi-level selection).
>  
> 
> The debate over the "unit of selection" is one of the most enduring and intellectually stimulating discussions in evolutionary biology. While Richard Dawkins is a staunch proponent of the gene as the fundamental replicator 1, David Sloan Wilson (often in collaboration with philosopher Elliott Sober) is a prominent advocate for "multi-level selection" (MLS) theory. MLS argues that natural selection can operate effectively at various nested levels of biological organization, from genes within individuals, to individuals within groups, and even groups within larger populations.8 Wilson and Sober contend that groups, much like individuals, can exhibit functional organization and compete, leading to group-level adaptations.8 The apparent conflict between Dawkins and Wilson is often oversimplified as an "either/or" choice. More accurately, it is a debate about the
> 
> primary or most fundamental level of selection, and the utility and parsimony of different explanatory frameworks for various evolutionary phenomena. Both sides acknowledge that selection occurs at multiple levels, but their emphasis on where the ultimate selective pressure lies, and the causal arrows they draw, differ significantly. This highlights a healthy divergence in scientific emphasis rather than a fundamental theoretical contradiction.
> 
>  
> Replicators vs. Vehicles: Reaffirming the conceptual distinction and why the gene is considered the ultimate replicator.
>  
> 
> Central to Dawkins' gene-centric argument is the critical distinction between "replicators" and "vehicles".10 Genes are defined as the "replicators"—entities that make copies of themselves with sufficient fidelity and persist across generations, thereby serving as the fundamental units of inheritance and long-term evolutionary change.2 Organisms, including individuals and potentially groups, are "vehicles"—temporary survival machines or "phenotypic effects" built by replicators to ensure their own propagation.2 Dawkins argues that "individuals never replicate themselves. Bodies don't create copies of themselves" 11; rather, genes are copied, and bodies are merely the means by which those copies are made and transmitted. This makes the gene the true, ultimate unit of selection in the long term. This distinction is not merely semantic or a philosophical preference; it is a profound conceptual tool that clarifies the
> 
> locus of evolutionary change over deep time. While natural selection acts on the observable phenotypic expression of vehicles (organisms, groups), the information that is faithfully copied and accumulates advantageous changes over generations resides in the replicator (the gene). This provides a robust foundation for understanding evolution that avoids common pitfalls of focusing solely on higher levels, which might overlook the fundamental dynamics of inheritance and the "free-rider" problem.
> 
>  
> The Price Equation and Equivalence: Discussing the mathematical frameworks that can reconcile different levels of selection, highlighting areas of consensus.
>  
> 
> While the debate between gene-centric and multi-level selection can often appear as a fundamental theoretical schism, many evolutionary biologists, including those who have engaged in extensive debate with both Dawkins and Wilson, acknowledge a significant degree of "mathematical equivalence" between these frameworks, particularly when analyzing evolutionary dynamics through the Price equation.14 The Price equation is a powerful mathematical tool that can rigorously partition selection into within-group and between-group components. This framework demonstrates that kin selection (a core gene-centric explanation for altruism) can, in fact, be understood as a special case that
> 
> includes elements of multi-level selection within its own structure.14 This mathematical compatibility suggests that different conceptual perspectives can often describe the
> 
> same underlying evolutionary dynamics using alternative, yet formally equivalent, mathematical or conceptual tools. The concept of mathematical equivalence is critical because it transforms what appears to be a deep theoretical schism into a discussion about explanatory convenience, preferred modeling approach, or the most parsimonious level of analysis. It implies that Dawkins' gene-centric view, while emphasizing a particular level, is not necessarily contradictory to multi-level selection in all cases, but rather a powerful and often more parsimonious way to model the same evolutionary outcomes.
> 
>  
> Why Dawkins Remains Skeptical of Group Selection's Primacy: Examining the challenges of "cheaters" and the robust explanatory power of gene-level explanations for apparent group adaptations.
>  
> 
> Despite the theoretical possibility and mathematical equivalence of multi-level selection, Dawkins has consistently expressed skepticism about the practical importance or primacy of group selection as a general basis for understanding altruism, especially when compared to the robust explanatory power of gene-level explanations like kin selection.6 A central challenge for group selection models is the pervasive "free-rider" or "cheater" problem: within any altruistic group, selfish individuals who benefit from the altruism of others without reciprocating will have a reproductive advantage, eventually outcompeting altruists and undermining the group's cohesiveness.16 While group selection is theoretically possible under very specific, often stringent, conditions (e.g., strong between-group competition and effective mechanisms to suppress within-group selfishness), Dawkins and many others argue that within-group selection (favoring selfish individuals) is "almost invariably weak compared to within-group selection in nature".14 This makes gene-level explanations, particularly kin selection, a more parsimonious and empirically supported account for many instances of cooperation. Dawkins' skepticism is not a dogmatic rejection of multi-level selection's possibility but a scientifically grounded preference for explanations that are more robust to the "cheater" problem and have demonstrated greater empirical support and predictive power across a wider range of phenomena. It highlights a methodological preference for parsimony and explanatory breadth, favoring the most robust and widely applicable explanation.
> 
>  
> Table 1: Key Concepts in Gene-Centric vs. Multi-Level Selection
>  
> 
>  
> Feature
> 
> Gene-Centric View (Richard Dawkins)
> 
> Multi-Level Selection Theory (David Sloan Wilson)
> 
> Primary Unit of Selection
> 
> Gene (Replicator) 1
> Nested Hierarchy (Genes, Individuals, Groups, Species) 8
> Organism's Role
> 
> Vehicle/Survival Machine for genes 2
> Functional Unit/Group of Traits, potentially a "group organism" 13
> Explanation for Altruism
> 
> Kin Selection, Reciprocity, Evolutionarily Stable Strategies (ESS) 2
> Group-level adaptation where "Altruistic groups beat selfish groups" 8
> Key Challenge Addressed
> 
> Apparent altruism, intragenomic conflict 7
> Emergence of complex sociality, human civilization, religion 8
> Mathematical Basis
> 
> Population Genetics, Price Equation (gene-centric interpretation) 7
> Price Equation (multi-level partitioning) 14
> Metaphorical Language
> 
> "Selfish gene," "survival machines," "extended phenotype" 1
> "Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups." 12
>  
> 
> IV. Formalism, Metaphor, and the Language of Science
>  
> 
>  
> 
> The Indispensable Role of Metaphor: Exploring how Dawkins effectively uses vivid metaphors to communicate complex scientific ideas to a broad audience.
>  
> 
> The user's query, referencing "hand waving" and "metaphor" in evolutionary biology, touches upon a common point of discussion. However, Richard Dawkins is widely celebrated as a "master of the vivid metaphor, the witty aside, the apt analogy".18 His strategic use of terms like "selfish gene," "survival machines," and "memes" 1 is not a substitute for scientific rigor but a highly effective pedagogical and communicative strategy. These metaphors serve to make complex, often counter-intuitive, abstract biological concepts intuitive and accessible to a broad audience, including non-specialists.6 While any metaphor can be "misleading" if taken too literally 21, Dawkins' metaphors are carefully crafted to illuminate underlying scientific realities and facilitate understanding. The critique of Dawkins' "metaphorical" approach often misunderstands the
> 
> purpose and power of his communication. His metaphors are not "hand-waving" but rather precise conceptual tools designed to aid understanding of complex scientific principles that are themselves deeply rooted in population genetics. They bridge the crucial gap between technical formalism and public comprehension, a role that is invaluable in science communication and contributes significantly to scientific literacy.
> 
>  
> Population Genetics as a Formalism: Discussing Michael Lynch's emphasis on population genetics as a formal theory and its scope.
>  
> 
> The post highlights Michael Lynch's perspective, where he asserts that population genetics "is" "the formal theory of evolution" [User Query]. Lynch's research exemplifies this focus, heavily relying on "population-genetic principles" to understand phenomena like genome architecture and the evolution of duplicate genes, emphasizing the profound influence of "drift and mutation".22 His underlying philosophy is that "nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of population genetics".22 This perspective correctly emphasizes the quantitative, mathematical underpinnings of evolutionary theory, focusing on changes in allele frequencies and the impact of factors like genetic effective population sizes.23 Lynch's emphasis on population genetics as
> 
> the formal theory is a valid and critically important perspective within evolutionary biology, highlighting the quantitative rigor and predictive power of the field. However, it represents a particular focus within the broader discipline, not necessarily a contradiction to Dawkins' conceptual framework. Indeed, Dawkins' gene-centric view is itself deeply rooted in population genetics principles, providing a conceptual lens through which to interpret and apply these formal models.
> 
>  
> Dawkins' Engagement with Formalism and Conceptual Clarity: Highlighting Dawkins' focus on testable hypotheses and logical coherence, even when his primary mode of communication is not mathematical.
>  
> 
> While it is true that Dawkins' "métier is metaphor—not mathematics" 24, his work is fundamentally rooted in the principles of population genetics and rigorous logical inference. His gene-centric view provides a clear framework for understanding "differential survival among genes" 3, which is the very essence of population genetics. He consistently champions "testable predictions" and "logical coherence" in scientific hypotheses.25 His famous thought experiments, such as the origin of a self-replicating molecule 3, are designed to demonstrate the logical sufficiency of Darwinian evolution to explain life's complexity without recourse to supernatural explanations.3 The "selfish gene" framework itself, though conceptual, has been "instrumental to make sense of new empirical observations and to the generation of new hypotheses" 28, a key function of any robust scientific theory. The perceived dichotomy between "metaphor" and "formalism" is often a false one. Dawkins' conceptual clarity, achieved through powerful metaphors, serves to make the
> 
> implications of formal population genetics models understandable and to generate testable hypotheses. His work is not devoid of rigor but expresses it in a different, equally valuable, form. He focuses on the underlying logic and causal mechanisms of evolution, which can be expressed mathematically but also profoundly understood through clear conceptual frameworks.
> 
>  
> The "A-semantic" Layer and Causal Reasoning: Briefly touching upon the philosophical discussion regarding formal systems and their interpretation in capturing biological causality.
>  
> 
> The query mentions "a-semantic layers of formal representations" and references philosophers like Neurath, Carnap, and Quine. This points to a deeper philosophical discussion about how abstract formal systems (such as mathematical models in population genetics) relate to and capture real-world causality. While a formal system might be considered "a-semantic" in its pure mathematical structure, its application to biology inherently requires "semantic bindings"—interpretations that connect the abstract symbols and rules to observable biological phenomena and their causal relationships [User Query]. Dawkins' strength lies precisely in providing compelling semantic bindings through his clear conceptual frameworks and vivid metaphors, making the causal implications of gene dynamics explicit and intuitively understandable, rather than leaving them "black-boxed" as the query suggests Lynch might do for certain aspects of biology. The philosophical point about "a-semantic" formalisms versus semantic interpretations highlights that even the most rigorous mathematical models require conceptual frameworks to be biologically meaningful and to provide causal explanations. Dawkins, through his powerful conceptual tools, provides precisely this semantic bridge, making the "evolutionary" aspect of phenomena clear and accessible.
> 
>  
> Table 2: Richard Dawkins' Key Metaphors and Their Scientific Purpose
>  
> 
>  
> Metaphor/Concept
> 
> Scientific Purpose/Meaning
> 
> Counter-Critique Addressed
> 
> "Selfish Gene"
> 
> Emphasizes the gene as the fundamental unit of selection, acting to maximize its own replication; provides a framework for explaining apparent altruism 1
> Accusations of "radical genism," anthropomorphism of genes, or oversimplification of motivation.
> 
> "Survival Machine" / "Vehicle"
> 
> Describes organisms (bodies) as temporary instruments or complex systems built by genes to ensure their propagation across generations 2
> Claims of reductionism, ignoring organismal complexity, or denying the organism's agency.
> 
> "Meme"
> 
> A unit of cultural transmission and evolution, analogous to a gene, explaining how ideas and behaviors spread and evolve in human culture 1
> Criticisms regarding the lack of cultural or environmental influences in evolutionary theory.
> 
> "Extended Phenotype"
> 
> The concept that a gene's phenotypic effects can extend beyond the individual organism's body to influence the external environment, including the bodies of other organisms 4
> Perceived limitations of gene action confined solely to the individual body.
> 
> "Blind Watchmaker"
> 
> Explains how the appearance of complex design in living organisms can arise through unguided, iterative natural selection, without the need for a conscious, supernatural designer 9
> Arguments for intelligent design or a creator deity based on biological complexity.
> 
>  
> V. Conclusion: Dawkins' Enduring Legacy
>  
> 
> Richard Dawkins' gene-centric view, far from being a "radical genism" to be "stood off," stands as a powerful and intellectually elegant framework for understanding evolution. By focusing on the gene as the fundamental replicator, it provides a clear, consistent, and unifying perspective on the ultimate unit of selection.6 This framework has demonstrated remarkable explanatory power, capable of illuminating complex phenomena such as altruism 3 and the intricate design of organisms.2 The "elegance" and "explanatory power" refer to the framework's ability to unify diverse observations under a single, coherent principle, a hallmark of a robust and successful scientific theory. While debates on the precise levels of selection continue to enrich the field, the gene's-eye view offers a robust and often more parsimonious explanation for many evolutionary puzzles, providing a foundational understanding that underpins much of modern evolutionary biology.
> 
> Beyond his profound theoretical contributions and rigorous scientific arguments, Richard Dawkins has been an unparalleled "gifted and articulate spokesman for evolutionary biology".20 His exceptional ability to translate complex scientific ideas into accessible and engaging language through vivid metaphors has inspired generations of students and the general public, significantly advancing the public understanding of science.6 This crucial role in science communication is distinct from, yet entirely complementary to, the formal mathematical work of population geneticists. Dawkins' impact extends significantly beyond academic theory; his role as a public educator is a crucial contribution to science itself, fostering widespread scientific literacy and a deeper appreciation for evolutionary principles.
> 
> In conclusion, the ongoing dialogue between gene-centric and multi-level selection perspectives, and the discussions about the optimal balance of formalism versus conceptual clarity in scientific explanation, are not signs of weakness or irresolution. Rather, they are vibrant indicators of a healthy, self-correcting, and evolving scientific enterprise. Each perspective offers valuable insights and analytical tools, and it is precisely through their interplay, rigorous debate, and eventual synthesis that our understanding of evolution continues to deepen, refine, and expand. This continuous process of inquiry and refinement is the true strength of science, ensuring that our models and explanations become ever more precise and comprehensive.
> 
> Works cited
> 
> 1.     www.britannica.com <http://www.britannica.com/>, accessed August 3, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Selfish-Gene#:~:text=misunderstanding%20of%20Darwinism.-,Dawkins%20argued%20that%20natural%20selection%20takes%20place%20at%20the%20genetic,the%20cultural%20equivalent%20of%20genes.
> 2.     Forty years of The Selfish Gene are not enough - PMC, accessed August 3, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4774003/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2farticles%2fPMC4774003%2f&c=E,1,N9UslSsfMbCFvf_iVu-ibZE6Sl-AAspOKB_eqSWr3qE42H8WZsXb6TrFB-drFQlUblyR3npLMCJsWQyvpKO6CY4oe0_eB-trM33chl-4SbjAadZUKRd5kZKtDA,,&typo=1>
> 3.     Richard Dawkins - PBS, accessed August 3, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.pbs.org%2ffaithandreason%2ftranscript%2fdawk-frame.html&c=E,1,19D_4537e1FJ-j8BAEM_DAZ0iFTrZin_aNe7g7inKzpZXohiDt5wt5IGX0zmR5LnMaFvj17OhwD5pIUVIUM9cl2_OcIjYhvPZNWDPipSbbSJXw,,&typo=1>
> 4.     The Selfish Gene - Wikipedia, accessed August 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
> 5.     What is Richard Dawkins trying to say in this paragraph from 'The Selfish Gene'? - Quora, accessed August 3, 2025, https://www.quora.com/What-is-Richard-Dawkins-trying-to-say-in-this-paragraph-from-The-Selfish-Gene-1
> 6.     Understanding Evolution: Gene Selection vs. Group Selection - University of Hawaii at Hilo, accessed August 3, 2025, https://hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/Vol07x23UnderstandingEvolution.pdf <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fhilo.hawaii.edu%2fcampuscenter%2fhohonu%2fvolumes%2fdocuments%2fVol07x23UnderstandingEvolution.pdf&c=E,1,dGqi9QftGQgdqUieKZUnywuifzzJ6d1O7E4xVbrCUcxIA6-PkWbrDfOO0J4pBaWJWFL_FAb4OYI3mD_gXnTdrmXaMDp8nTzxEIuO6_buHGBdP2p5xQ,,&typo=1>
> 7.     Gene-centered view of evolution - Wikipedia, accessed August 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution
> 8.     Group selection - Wikipedia, accessed August 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection
> 9.     Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia, accessed August 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
> 10.  Beyond Richard Dawkins' “Selfish” Genes and E.O. Wilson's Groups - Medium, accessed August 3, 2025, https://medium.com/@bill.giannakopoulos/beyond-richard-dawkins-selfish-genes-and-e-o-wilson-s-groups-53e00db8bf5f <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fmedium.com%2f%40bill.giannakopoulos%2fbeyond-richard-dawkins-selfish-genes-and-e-o-wilson-s-groups-53e00db8bf5f&c=E,1,n67YDFLfHwBYreTjxTvWKQbRZNnCwdCwNcXr9owoLrgSp8_sf-Yk4z89Aeln9SkQ13wenBahDWUHfqC68jzv-7ZnIq41bwJpq_9kQ8JrkJ2E&typo=1>
> 11.  A Crash Course in Multi-Level Selection Theory: Part 1-The Groundwork Laid by Dawkins and Gould - Dennis Junk's Author Site, accessed August 3, 2025, https://www.dennisjunk.com/readingsubtly/2012/07/a-crash-course-in-multi-level-selection.html <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.dennisjunk.com%2freadingsubtly%2f2012%2f07%2fa-crash-course-in-multi-level-selection.html&c=E,1,jtBq62Bhpj7CCVc5cFOYNzynOC1puBnCl6HZWZeA6q2k1bI0gNnd-ysBLOHAlWbcwOu6UoQL-JHMLmRYuU6XlchTPwJJ6-krgpCPUWMSU75m-gJq9vt8&typo=1>
> 12.  David Sloan Wilson - Wikipedia, accessed August 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sloan_Wilson
> 13.  Unit of selection - Wikipedia, accessed August 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection
> 14.  Richard Dawkins, Edward O. Wilson, and the Consensus of the Many - ProSocial World, accessed August 3, 2025, https://www.prosocial.world/posts/richard-dawkins-edward-o-wilson-and-the-consensus-of-the-many <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.prosocial.world%2fposts%2frichard-dawkins-edward-o-wilson-and-the-consensus-of-the-many&c=E,1,QGKq60bbASkBW_vyX1s2HMT2pqm4-PXbUjI3XF1_TVsjLUOq7a7fethNF39HM7moVvL0eKnO3EZWFM2J5iKNZumMKQGTmVqTQ9QRqra4knRZQgNyxKT-HSE,&typo=1>
> 15.  The demise of group selection - Why Evolution Is True, accessed August 3, 2025, https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2012/06/24/the-demise-of-group-selection/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwhyevolutionistrue.com%2f2012%2f06%2f24%2fthe-demise-of-group-selection%2f&c=E,1,CvZ5-mBdwsM2HFUWz7y-tZtM6AgoF8WgDf4Ju2sl7nY5T2DUVf5BqIr_YP9fLN2e5DP6XTfrfd0698Cu5Rw2ErlenTRSDJYpgVE3tWOoQcM,&typo=1>
> 16.  David Sloan Wilson's Group Selection Theory of Religion: Analysis and Possible Christian Responses, accessed August 3, 2025, https://christianscholars.com/david-sloan-wilsons-group-selection-theory-of-religion-analysis-and-possible-christian-responses/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fchristianscholars.com%2fdavid-sloan-wilsons-group-selection-theory-of-religion-analysis-and-possible-christian-responses%2f&c=E,1,N-y_teAiVXLkSlsYJ4l544AC2vVVhi_c0baB3iFpcdD8TrMrHSvLhD_AqVTCdeVgT1FazmBd1t1hhZnzNr9B-D4F8bvQ_6KyrCwEmmaDg8F4thFYfixWtNvotVW6&typo=1>
> 17.  Truth and Reconciliation for Group Selection: 11. Dawkins Protests (Too Much), accessed August 3, 2025, https://www.prosocial.world/posts/truth-and-reconciliation-for-group-selection-11-dawkins-protests-too-much <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.prosocial.world%2fposts%2ftruth-and-reconciliation-for-group-selection-11-dawkins-protests-too-much&c=E,1,zqUJy4FKKh8TD-duMSNPmg0Ky7kYt0snYn8BudYLwdjVxc2Fj6WSiX9GvfPEx_8YjYw7BM9EfJaPLkQrFsfjPUqMorK-oDstWpLEcCbS3Jxj287sYVKzVuA,&typo=1>
> 18.  Dawkins's Rainbow Reduces Science to Truth, Beauty--and Fantasy | American Scientist, accessed August 3, 2025, https://www.americanscientist.org/article/dawkinss-rainbow-reduces-science-to-truth-beauty-and-fantasy <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.americanscientist.org%2farticle%2fdawkinss-rainbow-reduces-science-to-truth-beauty-and-fantasy&c=E,1,BPy2wc6GbEt4LEdHOTuM5DLr4xE0RV9j81YU-j0j6B86OyRkNrO4wSa9tg7XI8KDGNqOmWxQxvBYl67RJBOuaA7i56jvtU1bxnu5osG6DNA,&typo=1>
> 19.  Memetics - Wikipedia, accessed August 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
> 20.  The Challenge of Richard Dawkins: Answering an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist, accessed August 3, 2025, https://directionjournal.org/40/1/challenge-of-richard-dawkins-answering.html <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdirectionjournal.org%2f40%2f1%2fchallenge-of-richard-dawkins-answering.html&c=E,1,8x0xLiqibdEzFEVjlIxAQJDXSpRW0GEUeY_S9l86g734uNcE4I665W0xv30Ryw0TkBCb1whkX0nw1HypFIaY9xO2niuHAAXBlruMiLSohFSPRAWV6yUbX4xw&typo=1>
> 21.  Metaphorical language in popular science literature: A case study of Richard Dawkins, accessed August 3, 2025, https://epublications.vu.lt/object/elaba:23361604/23361604.pdf <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fepublications.vu.lt%2fobject%2felaba%3a23361604%2f23361604.pdf&c=E,1,lav_EUuswYsO9JHYqw693kX9lG4CZwIe1ZmfgTYNELV3KuQSJgQaCNLdWPhEXiH1UW1gwbeUXw0MG5jfi781kyh5q5KUYuN6WN8c9LRYukwIYv04u4QG&typo=1>
> 22.  Michael Lynch: Faculty Emeriti - IU Biology - Indiana University Bloomington, accessed August 3, 2025, https://biology.indiana.edu/about/faculty/emeriti/lynch-michael.html <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbiology.indiana.edu%2fabout%2ffaculty%2femeriti%2flynch-michael.html&c=E,1,r1R0YS_rsktIy6cxwPLQJVpaxQDonLMZbY6SN6vQMOVbtcMKNxjgSlxJBO_ihWPF15kPuAcWJsZuADx3-dvD9adZZlSekGe7M1v5mJHslmiiNcCV&typo=1>
> 23.  The evolutionary scaling of cellular traits imposed by the drift barrier - PNAS, accessed August 3, 2025, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2000446117 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.pnas.org%2fdoi%2f10.1073%2fpnas.2000446117&c=E,1,gii40E1qMIge2kFTlwsI7vLsfcWlsF3hJgakAGARVOJbSrRnTBFiSGeYYbLADnZH-JsPiW5YnpWARawZ6MX_4e2qnxkbVPrxQko827KouJ34WRg,&typo=1>
> 24.  3.07: Revolutionary Evolutionist - Tom Ray, accessed August 3, 2025, https://tomray.me/pubs/news/LocalCopy/WiredDawkins.html <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2ftomray.me%2fpubs%2fnews%2fLocalCopy%2fWiredDawkins.html&c=E,1,13LTL6IdBlj0vWpIkY_mqMO_LdMFNadOA_tqOXZM83JendDn4SvhXEsQsipJgIGVU-cBIY_hK8NVcoXENlTEenbQ2jvYoZHvk8aLuZh557jjcHQ,&typo=1>
> 25.  Dawkins: Intelligent Design Is a Scientific Hypothesis - Evolution News, accessed August 3, 2025, https://evolutionnews.org/2025/05/dawkins-intelligent-design-is-a-scientific-hypothesis/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fevolutionnews.org%2f2025%2f05%2fdawkins-intelligent-design-is-a-scientific-hypothesis%2f&c=E,1,sT9CmyZ-VLMYUgIGTAtIUN-AQW2pnCihj1B0tyx26P1ZHstHJXbovYAuJv8_S5JLI3oH-hVJxTfYKMotvJoCZM3C2pqnC52SlO2hUD3lEkpCfQjQ9Q,,&typo=1>
> 26.  Interview: Richard Dawkins - PBS, accessed August 3, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-body.html <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.pbs.org%2ffaithandreason%2ftranscript%2fdawk-body.html&c=E,1,-wSl1YNdpkWLYaH-Wm4kxrDs9elBnuBFIwAgV5vLreAW2ToY0Q3CUCQm9QLciewMZdjwvwhGkOsE-448dW0H2tfm0ltobRdDtlNtI1bd4m8,&typo=1>
> 27.  Richard Dawkins: Who Was the First Human? - YouTube, accessed August 3, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4ClZROoyNM
> 28.  Selfish genetic elements and the gene's-eye view of evolution - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed August 3, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5804262/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2farticles%2fPMC5804262%2f&c=E,1,xZ1d_TKV8SiE-Jxb2LpkhmDFBgDAtNX46VruHjcpEdz0vM2sr8NqAnTAREVTzP_KJNOz132SHpyzZXTGJNaIAfjX3PPeS1291xrzAkTtelJDbJywFsWMV0LLn0zA&typo=1>
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 at 02:53, Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> David wilson singlehanded stood off the radical genism of dawkins for a generation and for that he will always have my gratitude no matter what other nonsense he gets into
>> Sent from my Dumb Phone
>> 
>> On Aug 1, 2025, at 6:00 PM, Santafe <desmith at santafe.edu <mailto:desmith at santafe.edu>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I had wanted to provide some supporting instance-material to the below, since Glen raised it again.
>> 
>>> On Aug 1, 2025, at 5:27, glen <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Eric explicitly mentioned a-semantic layers of formal representations w.r.t. "Darwinian evolution" and there may be a dearth of specificity about which "formalism" they intend. I don't interact with many evolutionary biologists. But part of the frustration expressed by ... what ... field biologists (?) with evolutionary biologists is that they seem to rely too much on metaphor. Some have used phrases like "hand waving". But the ones I argue with agree there could be such a thing as theoretical biology and simply have trouble getting clarity on whatever the evol biols mean when they use the words.
>> 
>> A nice example of a specific chunk of what I am calling a-semantic is represented in much of what Michael Lynch writes.  Here are two recent-enough examples.  (The first is open-access; I see just now that the second is behind a paywall, which is a bit of a pity, just for what the writing style tells you about the author, which provides a helpful context when evaluating the rest of his arguments.  They are also short and fairly easy-reading.)
>> The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
>> pnas.org
>> <pnas.2007.104.issue-suppl_1.cover.gif>
>>  <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.pnas.org%2fdoi%2f10.1073%2fpnas.0702207104&c=E,1,uLWBGPR-UMAf5oiU2XjlSFSVrzSDzY8zfm8fyS9pSlgOSv2gKGWc024LZLT9lkAWlNZEc4OhclNU60tHJy5mlRuB60cqvRze_rHGYOJBeg7HMXml&typo=1>The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.pnas.org%2fdoi%2f10.1073%2fpnas.0702207104&c=E,1,YjNoFAS1wlOwEwh6khbztWfZ56Ikm_Iy9uj_T3Bkq2fJcSh5O2ip1KNtdM0GAXYWxw2_DYMpntE8Jqk_oCwVHx6z_keerp4TxVm6CJa6t7Rdvfjk&typo=1>
>> pnas.org <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.pnas.org%2fdoi%2f10.1073%2fpnas.0702207104&c=E,1,bu0U9A5i4rrkSAThR-hTerJLAgOuvLlGF9WGLKJ9O2Bfq9H2-X1yYTUUlUcP2Q4hw_I-IH01UrH1nIvQ3FPp2AshpF8YVA7CfKcEtDCsWyIiTatiZthJ&typo=1>	<pnas.2007.104.issue-suppl_1.cover.gif>
>>  <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.pnas.org%2fdoi%2f10.1073%2fpnas.0702207104&c=E,1,XmtaTKH9_eRDjZ-T7l6O3IJNZ22z0tE1lOHBqFQ9BvriLHxf4x9cdIyUwIy4dN4UqJtMJDPfTZOp01Nzy5ukakrwEg2_DbZj9yXdZNCW4Q,,&typo=1>https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0702207104 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.pnas.org%2fdoi%2f10.1073%2fpnas.0702207104&c=E,1,bfILAXaBb5-g_ECtHPZk7UuD9hX8Gt71w8udzgY4Bn0ohXOWabc0HpZAC9iHQuelwTZwTK6OynGK9b4ZRfSJxcBZyyARdAhxQKcWwVpqemC-6dqeJiA,&typo=1>
>> 
>> Lynch will assert — and does in both of these papers — that a certain formal system that is the standard framework for population geneticists, “is” “the formal theory of evolution”.  Meaning that, in his intention, while there may be much required from biology to describe as much as we know about some system or the phenomena it participates in, all-and-everything that makes it specifically an “evolutionary” phenomenon is the part that maps to the few terms and rules that Lynch presents as the formal system of population genetics.  The rest might be physiology, or developmental biology, or biochemistry, macroecology, etc., and Lynch will assert that the population-genetic perspective is that all that rest can be black-boxed and interfaces with the “evolutionary” aspect only through receiving phenotypes through one window and handing back fitnesses through another.  So that’s his world.  
>> 
>> An important thing to understand in this is the Lynch is a very able, strict, and productive practitioner of population genetic analysis, and the presentation he gives here is a fair representation of best practice in that domain.  
>> 
>> The fact that Lynch would (I think almost-surely) not present that formalism as a-semantic is a separate issue.  In our thread of conversation we recognize that the semantic bindings are what Neurath or Carnap or Quine would have categorized as “choices” by a user, following Hilbert and the logicians in referencing formal systems (though here Quine would have broken away, probably arguing that there is no such thing as a really “formal” system in the sense of Hilbert, completely free from dependence on connotation).  Lynch could, in principle, understand all that, but he has other goals and would rather blow by such things as a waste of time in getting to where he wants to be.  So one deals with the person according to who he is committed to being.  It doesn’t impede our ability to understand what is going on. 
>> 
>> I would argue that his world-view, like many, happens to be quite self-serving.  He simply defines out-of-scope all the aspects of causal reasoning that aren’t subsumed within the formal system he employs, and thus by fiat those other dimensions are not “evolutionary”.  My own view is that that choice is not merely self-serving, but very very far from what one would call a general program of “inference to the best explanation”, or a very rich notion of what constitutes causation.  As such, it is a poor explication of what we want from the notion of the “evolutionariness” of a phenomenon, and much wider and equally concrete explications that take into account more of causality can readily be given.  But as a source of null hypotheses (his emphasis on neutrality and effective population sizes, for instance), it does need to be reckoned with quantitatively before being dismissed as inadequate.  Anyway, I mention this because I believe it is one source for the frustration Glen mentions below by GI biologists at various sorts of gate-keeping that the population geneticists seem to like to practice as a group.  
>> 
>> 
>> By the way, if anybody has a _lot_ of time to put into recreational reading, a philosophy colleague pointed me to this dissertation:
>> <preview.png>
>> FULL_TEXT
>> PDF Document · 1.7 MB
>>  <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fpure.manchester.ac.uk%2fws%2fportalfiles%2fportal%2f220272015%2fFULL_TEXT.PDF&c=E,1,e1JtRupjlN-N0VeP3jkaJSK5wBRLQPVfUKknzMCCI7I4xtJBbXMGpUbskPBdv8F0TCAoTis_WQVaYFEu0i-OmpDIlQssDgCK40i9yLs6VUNF9uC8r27LM7g66G4,&typo=1>FULL_TEXT <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fpure.manchester.ac.uk%2fws%2fportalfiles%2fportal%2f220272015%2fFULL_TEXT.PDF&c=E,1,Y8HB0w0-pZ8AnSjPkkp6MwZs3dPml8TcARo9U1uuGfWVuh-aJJH5v1F04OE7xvvjc5kqej7jZaZsVmPntlOOmByw7-WpTJSqKXaBXG8ON-3dc3Qf26g,&typo=1>
>> PDF Document · 1.7 MB <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fpure.manchester.ac.uk%2fws%2fportalfiles%2fportal%2f220272015%2fFULL_TEXT.PDF&c=E,1,fSkIhiqxoTo2NelU_AVOTvrOuCKHyeC8dKU_UL5PU6LAjHSw3PmiDTWjlCwmFzKVVXHUcbpMKpDSG4CZMUw3kJDQ99Y6aQKiWvMMmzfE&typo=1>by Joseph Bentley, which is the most helpful thing I have read to clear away underbrush and make a reasonable case for what Neurath and Carnap were after in their projects of Logical Empiricism, and how those projects related to later efforts, specifically Quine's.  I get weary sometimes of treatments in the Stanford Encyclopedia, which out of necessity to give broad coverage in a short space, will repeatedly make reference to the names of things, but often _never_ bother to even say what the names refer to.  The dissertation was a remedy for a lot of those omissions in the high-viz summaries.
>> 
>> Eric
>> 
>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,fEdZteFWgKF81pPjcX4mcekpGF-v3s2fC3UFAoY5uzDyx_ZnFhKMVnRqPuKQyKoPGX1DxfjLmIWA7bb6boQoc70SEC5gw2Dm41p9xIymi3sU_UjguU59FQ,,&typo=1>
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,ZhfFNkv21NtErEVh8XttgaB7gjXFHgEmbwjchXK8rDgl0Zr1rncFLBfTQOT5M2YaeQsW5dlWi5592ny2TeUR1PrknQuJoCYrLxeDkhMjP5dg_ofN0S5SkbgOsus,&typo=1>
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,ROyKwrBbmDrulyOLrOZ2KAmlNyZynsK1IC_NqYvqn-PKm79RXHCvLTJzSvFMDl-ESWbRMmurjvemGuzVLvGyamF_1mhN5MRH9kg4xWiNq5g_d2BMypmI&typo=1>
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,h5pA2bzWRpfpKvDUe5f_CBDclIL8slY3h-kUq8-m6JjDH8-cdYDVTx-s1MPYtDzqUvecbuHygXO0lFsRVdT9Mu8j1J02Khg7XcatRir-JBx5SHTjM4CG&typo=1>
>>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,DqPHn9U5rNTQfNGtQ8NVW5y6KCVbGvD10Ad03eAzUhIvXfNvcb_F9WBSfLsO6B8-QlA9n7HZ-s0Mmb94EtfriTqGTveKzJVwGfeeIXhEug,,&typo=1>
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,dtNEVa8xY28X1hmXmtS0B9bwEWODBo2Znub-PmCsfBZXOJVOVPMy7LIaCYfh3sQESlNy5bBMYIqUJhOG-ycXXIGez0TCI49mdYmg_x655i32&typo=1>
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,20UgMlUPRi74w9eeLYpU_0oETEuS-UW0tHIXmME9zF_6jWYwFqaKrsYuvRfpkyHRBhNGizb_CKsaW1NkO2HXJ7x0WUeVn2YhI8iJnm-xyA7h_g,,&typo=1>
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,mrgxNQexk3R5HiL6959viTF_dOBHTOKrqVe1rq2Gg_6mBKoTZCTdPFTwhfzTCPlQFHzULTyVG2a0RppvArBauhJuu-1_jBkaMERSOKBS&typo=1>
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,kfbbLieNEwOO_qiIi9lglTeBtK7g3V34hOi1_K4CCzM2GV-opZbBsaDLqT3H-Rcbq925alkyjt8IgpeXmTmrG_HqnI_ro5PB0xml2HNq1Lfrx443VA,,&typo=1
> to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,lA5TXBKFjwcZ_FuuhW2rD_Hd5yv6tAvZ1WcIvMS5rfkHutvPbyjDwmySjGo9PBzSe2an6CuOzMLc7IfVnpamc8SH7PAeSXkFkg2dbsU7tQ,,&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,-9cSBJ3v0WBZ4g6HCnDE5CiyF3tC1e189TRlny5vBQxJM8H4jRXhaGaBWmnJMj5isDrVGRK6mIYjcr2GIkCtWsivijy3odDevGwV6PT3QT3LzsRFeSTTigRCPaw,&typo=1
> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,MTy0MQ3PXolXtXg3l7LlUCWtmS4iCatjwp6gVVJvpBJE3Pq0bp_DaB8Is8KkVDe7vj4RALx7QLFbyjlyTj4UT19tGCSs2O9AUOP_uo1iEV72iuM6Yg,,&typo=1
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20250803/87ce873e/attachment.html>