Talk:Social evolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] The first sentence
13th July 2006: I have undone some of "Jarfingle"'s 10th July 2006 edit, because the first sentence did not make sense.
Update: on the 14th July, Jarfingle has reversed this edit. We are again left with a first sentence that is not a sentence.
- I reverted your edits because
- 1) It wasn't a sentence
- 2) Didn't include "social evolution" in the title which my version did.
- I'm afraid I don't see where you're coming from about the sentence not being sentence, looks ok to me. Feel free to edit it, but try to keep "social evolution" in there.Jarfingle 06:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect to Sociocultural Evolution
The removal of the content of this article and the redirection to 'sociocultural evolution' seems rather drastic. I have removed the redirect, and restored the content. Social evolution is a thriving field within the larger discipline of evolutionary biology, and it extends well beyond humans, embracing cooperatively-breeding vertebrates, insects, amoebae, bacteria and even viruses. This is not evident from the very anthropocentric article on sociocultural evolution, so I do think that social evolution requires its own article.
As an illustration, I have included a reference in the article to Steven Frank's "Foundations of social evolution", which is a highly-respected and relatively recent synthesis of this field. Frank has helpfully included a PDF of his book on his website, so I have provided a link to this here. Ayeaye 18:30, 2 Aug 2006.
[edit] Philosophical Assumptions
What is the set of philosophical assumptions that underlie the categorization of the the fitness consequences of the actor and the recipient? What are we philosophically trying to answer? What are those constructs predicated upon? Stevenmitchell 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
