Dawkins on Kimura



[moderator's note: I frown on meta-discussions, but I
suppose this is a useful perspective. Besides, Larry owns
the computers from which this ng is moderated,
sooooo.....take it away, Larry! - JAH]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 05:20:48 +0000 (UTC), John Edser
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Moran wrote:

>> If what you say is true then population geneticists and
>> evolutionary biologists must be really, really, stupid to
>> believe in random genetic drift. Is that what you think?
>
>> When your conclusion is completely at odds with the
>> scientific consensus, there are three main possibilities:
>>
>> (1) you're on to something new and original that nobody
>> has ever thought of
>> (2) you've made a mistake or don't know enough about
>> the subject
>> (3) you're a kook.
>>
>> Which category do you see yourself in?
>
> Lets be absolutely self consistent... Which category do
> you see _yourself_ in?

I put myself in category 2 whenever I find myself
disagreeing with all the experts in a field. On a few rare
occasions I've had illusions about being in category 1 but
these illusions were quickly dispelled. I worry about being
labelled a kook (category 3).

> There is no need to act in such a blatantly arrogant way.
> This list is not just about specialists using their own
> jargon to talk among themselves it is mostly about
> specialists informing the general public, who quite
> rightly have many VALID questions to ask.

For the most part, the experts on sci.bio.evolution have
done a good job of answering valid questions from non-
experts. The main problem is that several of the non-experts
just don't listen. For example, the experts have a good
working definition of evolution at the population level.
This is the definition they use in their debates and
discussions about evolutionary theory. I know of at least
one non-expert (you) who insists on using his own
idiosyncratic definition of evolution. I know of another non-
expert on sci.bio.evolution who refuses to listen when the
experts explain the fundamentals of basic chemistry. This
isn't the fault of the experts.

> All you need to do is carefully and SIMPLY explain your
> position. Above all, explain how an independent observer
> can test your view for themselves. Your arrogance and
> failure to partake in a simple thought experiment that can
> challenge the accepted dogma that random sampling error,
> alone, can be validly assumed to cause evolution and not
> just temporal variation, puts into question your
> integrity.

My position is that any change in the frequency of alleles
within a population is an example of evolution. According to
all the experts on population genetics such changes can
occur by natural selection or by random genetic drift. I've
looked at their models (= thought experiments) in the
textbooks and in the scientific literature. I find them very
convincing. Furthermore, I've looked at the actual evidence
of evolution by random genetic drift and found it
convincing. This evidence consists of real testable
experiments. There's also indirect evidence of the results
of evolution in modern species. These results can only be
reasonably explained by a stochastic process such as random
genetic drift of neutral alleles.

One of the characteristics of kooks is that they are
incredibly (even obsessively) self-centered. They see
themselves as beacons of light in a sea of darkness. In
other words, kooks see themselves in category 1 (above)
when, in fact, they are in category 3. You can often
recognize a kook because they accuse everyone else of
arrogance. They often use terms such as "accepted dogma" to
describe the point of view that they are challenging. The
term "dogma" is supposed to convey the idea that the experts
really don't have any evidence to support their position.
According to the kooks, these experts just blindly follow
each other because they're too stupid to think for
themselves. This "dogmatic" view is made out to be a form of
conspiracy that prevents the truth from being revealed. Of
course, only the kooks know about revealed truth.

One of the most obvious characteristics of newsgroup kooks
is that they post a huge number of messages taking on
everyone who questions the kook version of reality. If you
look closely, you'll see that the kooks rarely deal with
facts and evidence. Instead, they rely on "thought
experiments", strange definitions of terms, and obscure
theoretical and metaphysical arguments.

Many kooks also have an obsession over some minor aspect of
whatever it is they are attacking. Examples on this
newsgroup include hydrogen bonds and Hamilton's equation.
Some kooks have eccentric posting habits that don't conform
to standard newsgroup etiquette. I assume this is related to
their arrogance and their personal view of themselves as
very special individuals who don't need to conform.

Larry Moran
 
John Edser wrote:
>>>>>>JE:- Typically BOH replaces testable reality with just
>>>>>>his "expectations" of it. In simple terms such an
>>>>>>absurd event is termed: propaganda. The master was
>>>>>>Stalin. He turned reality into his "expectations" and
>>>>>>millions perished.
>
>
>>>>>BOH:- John, please read up on simple probability theory
>>>>>before you write another post ridiculing expectations.
>>>>>They have a precise mathematical definition, which you
>>>>>seem to be totally unaware of. As for testability, you
>>>>>might like to read up about a wonderful subject called
>>>>>"statistics". It's used to fit models to data, which is
>>>>>an esential component of testing hypotheses. One of the
>>>>>things you can do is to estimate expected values (e.g.
>>>>>of allele frequency changes).
>
>
>>>>>JE:- Once again BOH asks us to replace a testable
>>>>>reality with just his expectations of it.
>
>
>>>><snip>
>
>
>>>>BOH:- This is just a sematic game.
>
>
>>>>JE:- No, it is your "game" of misrepresentation.
>
>
>>>BOH:- No, your statement confuses two uses of the word
>>>"expectation". I was using the word in a technical sense,
>>>which I then tried to explain. Your senetence seemed to
>>>use the non-technical sense of the word, which is a
>>>different matter. Your sentence implies that in replacing
>>>the real world with something else, I am not making any
>>>allowance for the fact that the real world may be
>>>different. This is not the case, and the implication in
>>>your sentence comes purely from the different uses of a
>>>word. In that sense it is purely a matter of playing with
>>>semantics.
>
>
>>JE:- If you are not just "replacing the real world with
>>something else" using the "technical sense" of the word
>>"expectation", then what is the "real world"
>>representation of fitness that you are estimating?
>
>
> BOH:- My phrasing wasn't so clear - I am "replacing the
> real world with something else", but that I can still make
> allowances for it being different.
>
> JE:- Please note that you failed to answer the question
> that was asked.
>
I did, by pointing out that the question didn't make sense
in the context of what I was trying to write.

Bob

--
Bob O'Hara Department of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5) FIN-00014 University of
Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 23743 Mobile:
+358 50 599 0540 Fax: +358-9-191 22 779 WWW:
http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/

Journal of Negative Results - EEB: www.jnr-eeb.org
 
>>>>>>JE:- Typically BOH replaces testable reality with just
>>>>>>his "expectations" of it. In simple terms such an
>>>>>>absurd event is termed: propaganda. The master was
>>>>>>Stalin. He turned reality into his "expectations" and
>>>>>>millions perished.

>>>>>BOH:- John, please read up on simple probability theory
>>>>>before you write another post ridiculing expectations.
>>>>>They have a precise mathematical definition, which you
>>>>>seem to be totally unaware of. As for testability, you
>>>>>might like to read up about a wonderful subject called
>>>>>"statistics". It's used to fit models to data, which is
>>>>>an esential component of testing hypotheses. One of the
>>>>>things you can do is to estimate expected values (e.g.
>>>>>of allele frequency changes).

>>>>>JE:- Once again BOH asks us to replace a testable
>>>>>reality with just his expectations of it.

>>>><snip>

>>>>BOH:- This is just a sematic game.

>>>>JE:- No, it is your "game" of misrepresentation.

>>>BOH:- No, your statement confuses two uses of the word
>>>"expectation". I was using the word in a technical sense,
>>>which I then tried to explain. Your senetence seemed to
>>>use the non-technical sense of the word, which is a
>>>different matter. Your sentence implies that in replacing
>>>the real world with something else, I am not making any
>>>allowance for the fact that the real world may be
>>>different. This is not the case, and the implication in
>>>your sentence comes purely from the different uses of a
>>>word. In that sense it is purely a matter of playing with
>>>semantics.

>>JE:- If you are not just "replacing the real world with
>>something else" using the "technical sense" of the word
>>"expectation", then what is the "real world"
>>representation of fitness that you are estimating?

> BOH:- My phrasing wasn't so clear - I am "replacing the
> real world with something else", but that I can still make
> allowances for it being different.

> JE:- Please note that you failed to answer the question
> that was asked.

BOH:- I did, by pointing out that the question didn't make
sense in the context of what I was trying to write.

JE:- Once again BOH snips almost everything and attempts
to evade a BASIC question that was being asked of him.
Once again, sbe readers are given a right to question the
integrity of BOH. Is this how you treat your students? Is
this the "scientific method" you are using taxpayer's
money to teach?

Amazingly, you have admitted to "replacing the real world
with something else" but feel no need to explain to sbe
readers what this replaced "real world" was, exactly! How
perfectly Post Modern of you. All you are doing is dictating
what nature is. This is what every totalitarian throughout
history attempts to get away with. It was exactly this
syndrome that drove Karl Popper to come up with his concept
of testability.

______________________________________________________
What is the real world that you are replacing with just your
version of "something else"?

Please answer this question.
______________________________________________________

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email protected]
 
>>>>>>JE:- Typically BOH replaces testable reality with just
>>>>>>his "expectations" of it. In simple terms such an
>>>>>>absurd event is termed: propaganda. The master was
>>>>>>Stalin. He turned reality into his "expectations" and
>>>>>>millions perished.

>>>>>BOH:- John, please read up on simple probability theory
>>>>>before you write another post ridiculing expectations.
>>>>>They have a precise mathematical definition, which you
>>>>>seem to be totally unaware of. As for testability, you
>>>>>might like to read up about a wonderful subject called
>>>>>"statistics". It's used to fit models to data, which is
>>>>>an esential component of testing hypotheses. One of the
>>>>>things you can do is to estimate expected values (e.g.
>>>>>of allele frequency changes).

>>>>>JE:- Once again BOH asks us to replace a testable
>>>>>reality with just his expectations of it.

>>>><snip>

>>>>BOH:- This is just a sematic game.

>>>>JE:- No, it is your "game" of misrepresentation.

>>>BOH:- No, your statement confuses two uses of the word
>>>"expectation". I was using the word in a technical sense,
>>>which I then tried to explain. Your senetence seemed to
>>>use the non-technical sense of the word, which is a
>>>different matter. Your sentence implies that in replacing
>>>the real world with something else, I am not making any
>>>allowance for the fact that the real world may be
>>>different. This is not the case, and the implication in
>>>your sentence comes purely from the different uses of a
>>>word. In that sense it is purely a matter of playing with
>>>semantics.

>> JE:- If you are not just "replacing the real world with
>> something else" using the "technical sense" of the word
>> "expectation", then what is the "real world"
>> representation of fitness that you are estimating?

>BOH:- My phrasing wasn't so clear - I am "replacing the
>real world with something else", but that I can still make
>allowances for it being different. My point was that when
>"taking expectations", I'm not asking you to believe what I
>think will happen, instead I'm integrating a random
>variable over it's density function.

RN:- Your phrasing was entirely clear to anyone who has the
slightest training in probability.

JE:- SCIENCE is NOT just about "probability", it is about
contestable theories of nature and their resolution.

BOH has subsequently failed to say what part of the real
world he had replaced with just his "something else"
identified by BOH as just "a random variable over it's
density function".

My point remains VERY simple and VERY explicit. So far, it
has never been openly discussed.
________________________________________________
Fitness is _not_ just a stochastic measure, it is something
that can be exactly measured within Darwinism. BOH is
removing Darwin's implicit measure of fitness as a testable
reality and replacing it with just an integration "of a
random variable over it's density function". All this means
is that BOH is _dictating_ what fitness is by replacing a
testable Darwinian reality with just BOH's non testable
model of it. Darwinian fitness is just the total number of
fertile forms reproduced by each parent into one population.
________________________________________________

It is valid to estimate Darwinian fitness with a probability
model but it is not valid to replace it with such a model.
Models help test theories, they cannot replace theories. Neo
Darwinians are grossly misusing such models when they
attempt to replace testable theories of nature with models.
Nobody here will enter any discussion of these events, i.e.
nobody will discuss even just the possibility of model
misuse. This proves to me that model misuse must be endemic
within Neo Darwinism. Trying to hide such misuse by evading
any discussion of it allows sbe readers to assume that such
misuse is common, and it is.

RN has yet to fully respond to the illustration I provided
of one selective event where implicitly, Darwin simply
compared the total number of fertile forms reproduced within
one population by each parent.

_______________________________________________
Do you agree or disagree that two numerical totals can be
validly compared in a very exact way by simple default? If
you agree, please provide an illustration of the logic that
allows such an obvious event.
_________________________________________________

RN:- Also note that John Edser's style of responding
obscures the history of the thread , traditionally
represented by the '>' symbols at the start of the line.
Some snipping of content,which is entirely appropriate, has
completely removed my comments from the previous exchange,
even though my name appears prominently in the history lines
at the start of the posting.

JE: Firstly, I receive sbe as an _email_ list. On
return, the format has one ">" less than the news return
format. I would be happy to correct this situation if I
knew how to do so.

I am forced to use an email sbe list because my replies sent
via a more properly formatted newsgroup format were not
being forwarded to the moderator. Subsequently, my posts
would only appeared locally. I cannot obtain a satisfactory
answer as to why. Almost every time I boot up my computer
registers many attempts to hack into it. Also, I receive
many emails with viruses attached. I can only conclude that
I am a target for attack. Given the number of abusive
private emails I receive re sbe discussion which however, is
balanced somewhat by a number of supportive emails, I am not
surprised.

I passionately believe in _free_ and _fair_ discussion of
scientific _theory_. History has shown that the big advances
in science were conceived outside of the scientific
establishment. I am not suggesting that I am such a person!
On the contrary, all my arguments remain conservative to
Darwinian and Popperian basics. It is my view that Neo
Darwinism continues to misuse over simplified models and I
will continue to argue this is the case until a satisfactory
discussion of this particular topic is concluded.

Secondly, Josh our moderator requested some years back that
all responses label blocks of text with its author's
initials. In this way it becomes possible to more easily
know who said what to whom, such that the authorship cannot
be lost. To me, doing this is just plain common sense.
However only the "kooks" who post here appear to have the
intelligence to do what our moderator has asked of them,
e.g. JE and TH.

Please label all blocks of text within your replies with the
initials of the author of that block of text.

Regards,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email protected]
 
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 01:58:42 +0000 (UTC), "John Edser"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>RN has yet to fully respond to the illustration I provided
>of one selective event where implicitly, Darwin simply
>compared the total number of fertile forms reproduced
>within one population by each parent.

Larry Moran has a very nice response to you dated 3/29 which
is far better than anything I could report.

I will not comment on your unusual interpretation of the
role of genetic drift and of the usage of the term 'expected
value' in referring to random processes. Instead, I will
merely let people read what you have said on the issue and
decide for themselves. Incidentally, what Darwin did or did
not do on the notion of fitness has immense historical value
in studying the history of science. You might want to
consider, though, that the field of evolutionary biology has
changed a bit in the last 150 years.

I participate in about a dozen news groups, about evenly
divided between computer programming and science. Your
method of initialing entries by author may have been
suggested at one time, but is most definitely not the
standard used anywhere else. Nor is it the standard used
here. Still, it is the content, not the style, that is
important. I will not adhere to your convention nor will I
ask you to adhere to the convention used virtually
everywhere else in newsgroupland.
 
>> When your conclusion is completely at odds with the scientific
>> consensus, there are three main possibilities:
>>
>> (1) you're on to something new and original that nobody
>> has ever thought of
>> (2) you've made a mistake or don't know enough about
>> the subject
>> (3) you're a kook.
>>
>> Which category do you see yourself in?

> JE:- Lets be absolutely self consistent... Which category
> do you see _yourself_ in?

LM:- I put myself in category 2 whenever I find myself
disagreeing with all the experts in a field. On a few
rare occasions I've had illusions about being in category
1 but these illusions were quickly dispelled. I worry
about being labelled a kook (category 3).

JE:- How about: you're on to something old that nobody has
previously _fully_ understood?

> JE:- There is no need to act in such a blatantly arrogant
> way. This list is not just about specialists using their
> own jargon to talk among themselves it is mostly about
> specialists informing the general public, who quite
> rightly have many VALID questions to ask.

LN:- For the most part, the experts on sci.bio.evolution
have done a good job of answering valid questions from
non-experts. The main problem is that several of the non-
experts just don't listen. For example, the experts have
a good working definition of evolution at the population
level. This is the definition they use in their debates
and discussions about evolutionary theory. I know of at
least one non-expert (you) who insists on using his own
idiosyncratic definition of evolution.

JE:- My "idiosyncratic definition of evolution" is just a
fuller understanding of what Darwin was only implying.
Darwin described evolution as the accumulation of many
small heritable changes that were caused by natural
selection acting on separate individuals who lived in one
population, where selection is NOT just a random process!
Darwin gave much discussion to the importance of random
variation. At no time did he indicate, as you have
indicated, that such variation ALONE, could validly cause
evolution. Sampling error without selection cannot produce
evolution but selection without sampling error can. Do you
agree or disagree?

As you said, your definition is just a modelling "working
definition". However, evolution as a testable theory of
nature (an entirely different animal!) remains the
keystone of all of biology. Why do you insist on replacing
a definition of what evolution is within a testable theory
of nature with just an over simplified modelling "working
definition" that you, as a specialist prefer to work with?
What gives you and your colleagues the right to replace
Darwin's testable view of what evolution actually is
within nature with just your non testable over simplified
model of it?

LO:- I know of another non-expert on sci.bio.evolution who
refuses to listen when the experts explain the
fundamentals of basic chemistry. This isn't the fault of
the experts.

JE:- Yes, it is "the fault of the experts". A case was never
provided that refuted this other persons, view. All we seem
to get from yourself and your colleagues is non testable
mush, served up as "we all agree so it must be right". You
and most of your colleagues have embraced post modern
epistemology and rejected Popper's view. Prof. Felsenstein,
one of the most senior posters here, has openly proclaimed
that he will never discuss cause an effect. An objective
discussion remains impossible without it! Enron accountants
attempted reversed cause and affect when they reversed
debits to credits, for their own convenience. Allowing a
reversal of cause and effect anytime you wish to evade a
refutation of a favoured view is nonsense and everybody
knows it. It remains childish in the extreme to fail to
provide points of refutation for any supposed scientific
view AND KEEP TO THEM NO MATTER WHAT.

> JE:- All you need to do is carefully and SIMPLY explain
> your position. Above all, explain how an independent
> observer can test your view for themselves. Your arrogance
> and failure to partake in a simple thought experiment that
> can challenge the accepted dogma that random sampling
> error, alone, can be validly assumed to cause evolution
> and not just temporal variation, puts into question your
> integrity.

LP:- My position is that any change in the frequency of
alleles within a population is an example of evolution.
According to all the experts on population genetics such
changes can occur by natural selection or by random
genetic drift.

JE:-
1) Is it not obvious to you that _rates_ of random sampling
error can be selected?

2) Do you agree or disagree that random sampling error only
constitutes a supposed mechanism for supplying variation
within the ONE, SAME, Darwinian paradigm?

3) Why do you talk as if natural selection and just random
sampling error are somehow separate but equal mechanisms
such that either, alone, could cause evolution when this
is not the case?

4) Do you or any of your colleagues insist that random
patterns, e.g. drift patterns, _cannot_ be generated from
a non random process such as selection, ?

LQ:- I've looked at their models (= thought experiments) in
the textbooks and in the scientific literature. I find
them very convincing. Furthermore, I've looked at the
actual evidence of evolution by random genetic drift and
found it convincing. This evidence consists of real
testable experiments. There's also indirect evidence of
the results of evolution in modern species. These results
can only be reasonably explained by a stochastic process
such as random genetic drift of neutral alleles.

JE:- You have absolutely no right to assume that "random
genetic drift of neutral alleles" can only be caused by a
random process. Non random processes cause random patterns
all of the time, where all random patterns are the same
pattern. When you observe a random pattern, at all times,
EITHER a random or non random process may have caused it, no
exceptions.

LR:- One of the characteristics of kooks is that they are
incredibly (even obsessively) self-centered. They see
themselves as beacons of light in a sea of darkness. In
other words, kooks see themselves in category 1 (above)
when, in fact, they are in category 3. You can often
recognize a kook because they accuse everyone else of
arrogance.

JE:- Substitute a racial slur like "black" or "Jew" for
"kooks" and you have a sickening rehash of almost any
totalitarian argument you may wish to reproduce from our sad
history of ideas...

LM is suggesting a load of subjective rubbish. His
argument grants him the right to call anybody a witch he
wishes, disposing of them and their argument without
reason. His argument is the modern equivalent of witches
and witch burning.

LS:- They often use terms such as "accepted dogma" to
describe the point of view that they are challenging.
The term "dogma" is supposed to convey the idea that
the experts really don't have any evidence to support
their position.

JE:- No evidence exists that allows you to suggest that only
a random process can cause a random pattern. Non random
processes cause random patterns all the time. Science simply
throws them out as not significant. Why are you attempting
to turn such scientific garbage into a contestable theory?!?

LT:- According to the kooks, these experts just blindly
follow each other because they're too stupid to think
for themselves. This "dogmatic" view is made out to be
a form of conspiracy that prevents the truth from
being revealed. Of course, only the kooks know about
revealed truth.

JE:- Of course, only the experts know about revealed
truth.... IF you insist on deleting Popper's basic
requirement that all views within science be testable to
refutation then all the scorn you pour on the "kooks" can be
poured on you so that science just becomes a the type
slanging match you have displayed above...

LU:- One of the most obvious characteristics of newsgroup
kooks is that they post a huge number of messages taking
on everyone who questions the kook version of reality. If
you look closely, you'll see that the kooks rarely deal
with facts and evidence. Instead, they rely on "thought
experiments", strange definitions of terms, and obscure
theoretical and metaphysical arguments. Many kooks also
have an obsession over some minor aspect of whatever it
is they are attacking. Examples on this newsgroup include
hydrogen bonds and Hamilton's equation. Some kooks have
eccentric posting habits that don't conform to standard
newsgroup etiquette. I assume this is related to their
arrogance and their personal view of themselves as very
special individuals who don't need to conform.

JE:- Either a view is testable and self consistent or it is
not. Both are easily established. When you delete the
Popperian requirement for refutation you delete science. All
the noise in the world, no matter if it emanates from within
an establishment or outside of it, can only hinder the
evolution of the sciences. Historically, much more noise has
emanated from within such establishments than from outside
of them! Historically such establishments prefer
protectionism and monetary subsidy to openness and earning
their own living in a free marketplace. Typically, they
disown the businesses sector that provides their economic
needs as just a lower class of intellectualism because it is
only concerned with making money, while they are only
concerned with scientific purity. Today establishments
cannot exist this way. The general public, quite rightly,
will not allow it...

Best Wishes,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email protected]
 
John Edser wrote: <snip>
>>>>>BOH:- This is just a sematic game.
>>>>
>
>>>>>JE:- No, it is your "game" of misrepresentation.
>>>>
>
>>>>BOH:- No, your statement confuses two uses of the word
>>>>"expectation". I was using the word in a technical
>>>>sense, which I then tried to explain. Your senetence
>>>>seemed to use the non-technical sense of the word, which
>>>>is a different matter. Your sentence implies that in
>>>>replacing the real world with something else, I am not
>>>>making any allowance for the fact that the real world
>>>>may be different. This is not the case, and the
>>>>implication in your sentence comes purely from the
>>>>different uses of a word. In that sense it is purely a
>>>>matter of playing with semantics.
>>>
>
>>>JE:- If you are not just "replacing the real world with
>>>something else" using the "technical sense" of the word
>>>"expectation", then what is the "real world"
>>>representation of fitness that you are estimating?
>>
>
>>BOH:- My phrasing wasn't so clear - I am "replacing the
>>real world with something else", but that I can still make
>>allowances for it being different.
>
>
>>JE:- Please note that you failed to answer the question
>>that was asked.
>
>
> BOH:- I did, by pointing out that the question didn't make
> sense in the context of what I was trying to write.
>
<snip>
>
> Amazingly, you have admitted to "replacing the real world
> with something else" but feel no need to explain to sbe
> readers what this replaced "real world" was, exactly!

Err, pehaps the "real world" was the real world?

Bob

--
Bob O'Hara

Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5) FIN-00014 University of
Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 23743 Mobile:
+358 50 599 0540 Fax: +358-9-191 22 779 WWW:
http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/ Journal of Negative
Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org
 
Larry Moran wrote:
> Jeffrey Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Breeding in controlled environments is hardly earth-
>>shattering. As far as supporting my claim, I used a random
>>genetic drift calculator I found on the net,
>>http://www.utm.edu/~rirwin/Drift.htm and, used the maximum
>>population size of 200 and a mutation frequency of 0.005
>>corresponding to a mutation in a single individual. In 50
>>trials, one mutation lasted for the full maximum duration
>>of 200 generations and was at about 53% at the end having
>>maxed out under 66%. When Europeans started settling North
>>America in numbers the bison population was 60 million. To
>>evolve a random characteristic in a population that size
>>to the point where a new species would have been 100%
>>different from the progenitor would have taken more time
>>than the existence of the universe if you assume a
>>reasonable length of a generation and suitable scaling of
>>the numbers for the artificially small population of 200
>>used in the mathematical exercise.
>
>
> If what you say is true then population geneticists and
> evolutionary biologists must be really, really, stupid to
> believe in random genetic drift. Is that what you think?

There's lots of people who believe in UFOs, does that make
that science too? Unless you've got a verifiable hypothesis
you're just another crank. It's a shame that there's such
pressure in academe to produce papers that people have been
reduced to studying tea leaves but that's the way the cookie
crumbles, I guess.

Why can't people accept that at some point veins of
knowledge, like veins of precious metals, are played out?

--Jeff

--
A man, a plan, a cat, a canal - Panama!

Ho, ho, ho, hee, hee, hee and a couple of ha, ha, has;
That's how we pass the day away, in the merry old land of
Oz.
 
>RN has yet to fully respond to the illustration I provided
>of one selective event where implicitly, Darwin simply
>compared the total number of fertile forms reproduced
>within one population by each parent.

RN:- Larry Moran has a very nice response to you dated 3/29
which is far better than anything I could report.

JE:- What did LM's post have to do with the question I
asked? Once again RN has failed to answer the question. ONCE
AGAIN, I ask RN to answer this question.

I asked: Can two totals be compared using a standard set
theory intersection in the way that I illustrated,
irrespective of what the numbers represent? I asked because
RN had previously rubbished my use of set theory. If RN
continues to refuse to answer then sbe readers can validly
question RN's integrity. IMHO the reason RN refused was
because he does not wish to know that Darwin's implicit
view of fitness was NOT just stochastic, it was an _exact_
logic. Such a fact upsets the Neo Darwinian, gene centric
apple cart.

RN:- I will not comment on your unusual interpretation of
the role of genetic drift and of the usage of the term
'expected value' in referring to random processes. Instead,
I will merely let people read what you have said on the
issue and decide for themselves.

JE:- That is your prerogative. However, just sitting on the
fence for political reasons (i.e. protecting your own Neo
Darwinistic tribe) does science a disservice.

RN:- Incidentally, what Darwin did or did not do on the
notion of fitness has immense historical value in studying
the history of science. You might want to consider, though,
that the field of evolutionary biology has changed a bit in
the last 150 years.

JE:- Please supply any other _testable_ theory of
evolution that you know of that is _different_ to Darwin's
original theory.

What has happened over the last 150 years is Darwin's theory
has been explored. Mendel's genes have only started to be
integrated within Darwin's selection theory. The fusion of
Darwin with Mendel is such a difficult exercise Neo
Darwinists have been forced to misuse oversimplified models
in their attempt to do so, making massive errors in the
process. It is these errors that they refuse to address.

Why do you argue as if Karl Popper did not even exist? What
right do you and your colleagues have to claim that non
refutable propositions of Neo Darwinian fitness can replace
a derived Darwinian testable view of the same topic?

RN:- I participate in about a dozen news groups, about
evenly divided between computer programming and science.
Your method of initialing entries by author may have
been suggested at one time, but is most definitely not
the standard used anywhere else. Nor is it the standard
used here.

JE:- All that should concern you here is:-

1) Does the sbe moderator request that we do so? ANSWER: yes

2) Is initialling each block of text a better way to trace
who said what to whom, quickly and easily assuring the
authorship of blocks of text over many replications (ring
any bells re gene marking)? ANSWER: yes

3) Why then do most posters refuse to do it?

ANSWER: Because Edser suggest it and nobody can
be seen agreeing with Edser can they, because
everybody knows that Edser is just a "kook"....

In Japan a group of imported monkey's were fed peeled
bananas that were thrown onto sandy beaches. A low cast
female learned to remove this grit by washing this food in
the sea water allowing it to become edible. Such a
beneficial behaviour spread by imitation from the lower
ranks, upwards. However, most dominant males never learned
it. It appeared they would prefer not to learn from lower
status individuals. How predictable.

RN:- Still, it is the content, not the style, that is
important.

JE:- Yes, we agree.

RN:- I will not adhere to your convention nor will I ask you
to adhere to the convention used virtually everywhere else
in newsgroupland.

JE:- How stolidly conservative. What everybody else does
_must_ be better... mustn't it....

Best Wishes,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email protected]
 
>>>>>BOH:- This is just a sematic game.
>>>>

>>>>>JE:- No, it is your "game" of misrepresentation.
>>>>

>>>>BOH:- No, your statement confuses two uses of the word
>>>>"expectation". I was using the word in a technical
>>>>sense, which I then tried to explain. Your senetence
>>>>seemed to use the non-technical sense of the word, which
>>>>is a different matter. Your sentence implies that in
>>>>replacing the real world with something else, I am not
>>>>making any allowance for the fact that the real world
>>>>may be different. This is not the case, and the
>>>>implication in your sentence comes purely from the
>>>>different uses of a word. In that sense it is purely a
>>>>matter of playing with semantics.

>>>JE:- If you are not just "replacing the real world with
>>>something else" using the "technical sense" of the word
>>>"expectation", then what is the "real world"
>>>representation of fitness that you are estimating?

>>BOH:- My phrasing wasn't so clear - I am "replacing the
>>real world with something else", but that I can still make
>>allowances for it being different.

>>JE:- Please note that you failed to answer the question
>>that was asked.

> BOH:- I did, by pointing out that the question didn't make
> sense in the context of what I was trying to write.

<snip>

> BOH:- Amazingly, you have admitted to "replacing the real
> world with something else" but feel no need to explain to
> sbe readers what this replaced "real world" was, exactly!

BOH:- Err, pehaps the "real world" was the real world?

JE:- What is the above _pointless_ tautology supposed to
mean? You are a god? You KNOW what the real word is so that
YOU do not have to provide testable theories of what it MAY
be? Can't you see what you are suggesting? You are only
dictating what nature is. You cannot replace a testable
reality with just your expectation of it unless you can
prove that your expectation is the better theory. To begin
such an exercise the expectation you provide must be
testable in the Popperian sense.

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email protected]
 
"John Edser" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> [Larry Moran wrote] When your conclusion is completely
> >> at odds with the scientific consensus, there are three
> >> main possibilities:
> >>
> >> (1) you're on to something new and original that
> >> nobody has ever thought of
> >> (2) you've made a mistake or don't know enough about
> >> the subject
> >> (3) you're a kook.

I share with our moderator a distaste for meta-discussions.
Still, it can be viewed as somewhat on topic, if you look
upon it as an exercise in cladistics. Larry suggests two
exemplars of his proposed new taxon
H. sapiens kookus and suggests a few characteristic traits.
The result of this effort is an exchange of entirely
predictable insults. However, there was one snippet from
this exchange that is worth further consideration. I
therefore [SNIP!!]
> > JE:- [sbe] is not just about specialists using their own
> > jargon to talk among themselves it is mostly about
> > specialists informing the general public, who quite
> > rightly have many VALID questions to ask.
> LM:- For the most part, the experts on sci.bio.evolution
> have done a good job of answering valid questions from
> non-experts.
[SNIP more]
> LM:- I know of another non-expert on sci.bio.evolution who
> refuses to listen when the experts explain the
> fundamentals of basic chemistry. This isn't the fault
> of the experts. JE:- Yes, it is "the fault of the
> experts". A case was never provided that refuted this
> other persons, view.
[more SNIPped]
> > JE:- All you need to do is carefully and SIMPLY explain
> > your position.
[SNIP remainder]

John is correct, of course, that there is a kind of
responsibility shared by the expert class to provide clear
and simple explication of theories, concepts, and jargon to
outsiders. To my mind, that responsibility has been
admirably discharged by textbooks, review articles, and
popularizations. It is a serious tactical mistake to demand
that collective responsibility be individually discharged in
a medium such as sbe. The wise experts simply ignore such
demands. The unwise respond to pleas for enlightenment at
first, and they receive nothing but abuse for their efforts.
Unfortunately, this does not make them wise - it makes them
bitter and contemptuous. Been there, done that. Still doing
it. Someday, perhaps, I will learn wisdom.

It seems to me that the non-expert is the one with the
individual responsibilities here - at least if the non-
expert wishes to escape from his natural classification in
Larry's taxon #2. The non-expert needs to read the textbooks
and the review articles (not the popularizations - they are
IMO only suitable as entertainment).

Now, it is often the case that this regimen (it DOES take
some work, but it IS possible for anyone of average or
better intelligence) will remove the non-expert from his
situation of being at odds with the scientific consensus.
But, it may not. In which case, I would prescribe a
return to a forum such as sbe to collect pointers to
additional textbooks and review articles. As the famous
shampoo instructions say "Lather, rinse, repeat". And
again, and again.

Eventually, our hero will be able to meet and challenge the
experts on their own playing field, using their own
language, and their own modes of argument. If his case is
strong, he may pick up some supporters from the expert
ranks. Eventually, he may even prevail, though it is likely
that he will have to wait one traditional generation for the
old guard to die off and be replaced.

But enough of this sappy Horatio Alger stuff. Let me return
to the cladistics of H. sapiens kookus. Based on Larry's two
exemplars, let me suggest a few more candidate
characteristic traits of the kook.
1. They are well above average intelligence.
2. They have some genuine expertise in quasi-related
fields, such as epistemology or the dynamics of human
relationships. And this shows itself in occasional
clear, pointed, and insightful comments in threads where
their disagreement with the experts is not at issue.
3. They have undertaken at least one pass at my self-
education plan of reading textbooks and reviews.
4. This quick first pass has left some glaring holes in
their educational background. Their quick intuition has
converted this lack of understanding into active mis-
understanding.
5. Upon having this misunderstanding pointed out, they deny
that a misunderstanding exists, and hence refuse to
submit themselves to a second pass at self-education.
(Here Larry's list of traits overlaps with mine - the
only proper name for this trait is "arrogance".)
6. When they feel that they have been attacked, they
immediately counterattack. (Well, OK. I admit that this
trait is hardly useful cladistically. I only included it
as a prophylactic gesture. Almost certainly futile. I
never claimed to wisdom, only self-awareness. ;-)
 
> > JE:- [sbe] is not just about specialists using their own
> > jargon to talk among themselves it is mostly about
> > specialists informing the general public, who quite
> > rightly have many VALID questions to ask.

> LM:- For the most part, the experts on sci.bio.evolution
> have done a good job of answering valid questions from
> non-experts.
[SNIP more]

> LM:- I know of another non-expert on sci.bio.evolution who
> refuses to listen
when
> the experts explain the fundamentals of basic chemistry.
> This isn't the fault of the experts.

> JE:- Yes, it is "the fault of the experts". A case was
> never provided that refuted this other persons, view.

[more SNIPped]

> > JE:- All you need to do is carefully and SIMPLY explain
> > your position.
[SNIP remainder]

JM:- John is correct, of course, that there is a kind of
responsibility shared by the expert class to provide clear
and simple explication of theories, concepts, and jargon to
outsiders. To my mind, that responsibility has been
admirably discharged by textbooks, review articles, and
popularizations. It is a serious tactical mistake to demand
that collective responsibility be individually discharged
in a medium such as sbe. The wise experts simply ignore
such demands.

JE:- No expert, either individually or communally, can
ignore a demand for testability. Only this thin blue line
separates science from the everyday chaos that commonly
passes for "reasoned argument". Popper and Darwin were so
far ahead of their time that more than likely, humans will
become extinct before they fully realise what these
thinkers were saying. Without any possibility of
refutation, contesting ideas require blood to be spilled.
An intellectual blood spill starts with indifference,
dishonesty, self contradiction and argument only by force
of authority. Eventually, either the ideas themselves
compete and die or the people that believe in them, do.
The reason why science is civilised is because the ideas
that scientists invent, which are called theories, do
their own fighting on the battlefield of ideas. To enter
this battlefield any idea must be logically self
consistent (free from contradiction) and refutable.
Verification which provides the practical use of any idea
is not the main weapon used to combat another idea.
Science is a practical subject so, quite rightly, it
mostly focuses on verification. However, the
epistemologist, who must act as the battlefield referee
has to check the amour of logical self consistency and the
weapon of refutation for each combating idea _before_ the
battle can even begin. If the epistemologist fails to do a
good job, the chalk lines on a blackboard eventually
transform themselves into battlefield trenches.

>snip<

JM:- It seems to me that the non-expert is the one with the
individual responsibilities here - at least if the non-
expert wishes to escape from his natural classification in
Larry's taxon #2. The non-expert needs to read the textbooks
and the review articles (not the popularizations - they are
IMO only suitable as entertainment).

JE:- The epistemologist is the only expert that is soundly
ignored. Indeed, courses in epistemology are mostly offered,
along with basket weaving, to bored retirees. However, the
specialist in any scientific field ignores the
epistemological umpire at their own peril.

>snip<

Regards,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email protected]
 
Larry Moran wrote:

> [moderator's note: I frown on meta-discussions, but I
> suppose this is a useful perspective. Besides, Larry owns
> the computers from which this ng is moderated,
> sooooo.....take it away, Larry! - JAH]

I like meta-discussions, myself, but would appreciate it if
you could handle e-mail replies in the same fashion as
posted replies because my newsreader places all of John
Edser's posts off the root of the thread and makes it
impossible to follow threads through his posts. Thanks.

[moderator's note: This is a consequence of John's posting
methodology. Posts originating in newsreaders contain header
information, such as the "References:" line, which enable
them to be threaded. John simply emails his posts, and
hence, the References line is stripped out. Perhaps you
could prevail upon him to use a newsreader. - JAH]

BTW, is Larry an administrator? Does that explain his
conceit that an appeal to authority is valid in scientific
discourse?

> My position is that any change in the frequency of alleles
> within a population is an example of evolution. According
> to all the experts on population genetics such changes can
> occur by natural selection or by random genetic drift.

Sure it can happen by random genetic drift but that's a slow
process that by definition produces no useful results.
Useful means adaptive. I suppose you could define useful to
mean politically useful to humans who can write a paper
about such things and thus achieve fame and fortune but...

--Jeff

--
A man, a plan, a cat, a canal - Panama!

Ho, ho, ho, hee, hee, hee and a couple of ha, ha, has;
That's how we pass the day away, in the merry old land of
Oz.
 
John Edser wrote: <snip>
>>JE:- Amazingly, you have admitted to "replacing the real
>>world with something else" but feel no need to explain to
>>sbe readers what this replaced "real world" was, exactly!
>
>
> BOH:- Err, pehaps the "real world" was the real world?
>
> JE:- What is the above _pointless_ tautology supposed to
> mean? You are a god? You KNOW what the real word is so
> that YOU do not have to provide testable theories of what
> it MAY be?

No, I am trying to model the real world by developing a
simplified representation of it. But it is the real world I
am trying to represent. I can then compare my representation
with the real world, to see how well/badly it does.

Are you suggesting that I should make comparisons with
something else?

Bob

--
Bob O'Hara

Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5) FIN-00014 University of
Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 23743 Mobile:
+358 50 599 0540 Fax: +358-9-191 22 779 WWW:
http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/ Journal of Negative
Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org
 
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:46:04 +0000 (UTC),
Jeffrey Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Moran wrote:

[snip]

>> My position is that any change in the frequency of
>> alleles within a population is an example of evolution.
>> According to all the experts on population genetics such
>> changes can occur by natural selection or by random
>> genetic drift.
>
> Sure it can happen by random genetic drift but that's a
> slow process that by definition produces no useful
> results. Useful means adaptive. I suppose you could define
> useful to mean politically useful to humans who can write
> a paper about such things and thus achieve fame and
> fortune but...

I'm glad we agree that random genetic drift is a mechanism
of evolution.

We agree that random genetic drift is not the same as
adaptation.

You think that the only "useful" result of evolution is an
allele that is fixed by natural selection. You are entitled
to your opinion.

Some of the rest of us are interested in ALL of the results
of evolution. We are interested in how life evolved and not
just in how organisms adapt. I can understand why you aren't
interested in things like pseudogenes, genome organization,
molecular evolution, and the source of variation within a
population but I'm having trouble understanding why you feel
the need to be so insulting about the interests of many
evolutionary biologists.

Larry Moran
 
Jeffrey Turner <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:

[genetic drift]

> It's a shame that there's such pressure in academe to
> produce papers that people have been reduced to
> studying tea leaves but that's the way the cookie
> crumbles, I guess.
>
> Why can't people accept that at some point veins of
> knowledge, like veins of precious metals, are played out?

The question of which features of organisms are adaptations
- and which are more like accidents - is nowhere near being
played out.

The natural world contains much diversty - allowing the
question to be asked very many times - and many of those
occasions are likely to require separate investigations - if
we are going to obtain the answers.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
"John Edser" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> JE:- No expert, either individually or communally, can
> ignore a demand for testability. Only this thin blue line
> separates science from the everyday chaos that commonly
> passes for "reasoned argument". Popper and Darwin were so
> far ahead of their time that more than likely, humans will
> become extinct before they fully realise what these
> thinkers were saying. Without any possibility of
> refutation, contesting ideas require blood to be spilled.
> An intellectual blood spill starts with indifference,
> dishonesty, self contradiction and argument only by force
> of authority. Eventually, either the ideas themselves
> compete and die or the people that believe in them, do.
> The reason why science is civilised is because the ideas
> that scientists invent, which are called theories, do
> their own fighting on the battlefield of ideas. To enter
> this battlefield any idea must be logically self
> consistent (free from contradiction) and refutable.
> Verification which provides the practical use of any idea
> is not the main weapon used to combat another idea.
> Science is a practical subject so, quite rightly, it
> mostly focuses on verification. However, the
> epistemologist, who must act as the battlefield referee
> has to check the amour of logical self consistency and the
> weapon of refutation for each combating idea _before_ the
> battle can even begin. If the epistemologist fails to do a
> good job, the chalk lines on a blackboard eventually
> transform themselves into battlefield trenches.

JM:- Until now, I have avoided the discussions regarding
epistemology and drift because I don't know enough about
either subject. However, in keeping with my recent policy of
eschewing wisdom ...

Suppose the hypothesis is that 70% of the genetic (base-pair
level) differences between **** and Pan are caused by drift,
rather than by NS. Wouldn't that hypothesis be refuted by
cumulative findings that 35% of the differences are adaptive
(for one genus or the other), supplemented by a statistical
analysis showing that differences caused by drift are
extremely unlikely to result in adaptive differences as
often as 5% of the time?

It seems to me that it is the hypothesis - that 70% of the
differences are caused by NS - that is unrefutable. For the
defender of this hypothesis only has to point out that just
because an adaptive explanation of the difference has not
yet been found, that doesn't mean that one won't be found in
the future. In fact, Maynard Smith, in the third (1975)
edition of The Theory of Evolution, quoted with approval
exactly this argument against Kimura. (Which just goes to
show - the pope ain't infallible!)

By the way, John, I realize that I still owe you a response
regarding set theory and Venn diagram models of Natural
Selection. Please pardon the delay.
 
Jeffrey Turner <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:

> Sure it can happen by random genetic drift but that's a
> slow process that by definition produces no useful
> results. Useful means adaptive.

Accidents can produce useful results.

Because something is useful, that doesn't mean it is not
an accident.

Just as accidents can turn out to be useful - so adaptations
can wind up being useless.

Adaptations are not defined by their usefulness - though
they were all once useful historically.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
Jeffrey Turner <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> BTW, is Larry an administrator? Does that explain his
> conceit that an appeal to authority is valid in scientific
> discourse?

Oh! Well put. I wish I had said that! (I like the extraneous
cat in your signature palindrome too.)

But if I HAD said that, I wouldn't be allowed to quibble
with it. And quibbling can be fun too. My quibble is with
the implicit claim that appeals to authority are "invalid"
in scientific discourse. A more modest claim would be that
they are generally ineffective.

Lots of things are acceptable in scientific discourse,
particularly informal discourse in a newsgroup like this.
One finds appeals to humor, appeals to intuition, appeals to
analogy, appeals to epistemology, appeals to authority, and
even appeals to Stuart Kauffman. The one thing one rarely
finds, in sbe at least, is an appeal to detailed empirical
evidence. I suppose one should be grateful for this - if
this were the only appeal permitted, there would be few
posters and fewer readers.

For some examples of the kinds of appeals that are deemed
acceptable in "official" scientific discourse (and some
critiques of same) I would recommend a reading or rereading
of two rhetorical masterpieces of the genre:

"The Spandrels of San Marco ..." http://www.aaas.org/spp/ds-
er/evolution/history/spandrel.shtml

"The Spaniels of St. Marx ...", David Queller, The Quarterly
Review of Biology, Vol. 70, No. 4 (Dec.,1995), 485-489 (full
text available online thru most libraries).

Having said this, there are a few contexts in which an
appeal to authority ought to have some effectiveness:
1. In response to one appeal to authority, a second appeal
to a higher authority carries some clout.
2. An appeal to authority is clearly appropriate in a
dispute over the definition or use of a technical term.
(Admittedly, LM stretches this one when he insists that
everyone use a definition of evolution which was
recently crafted by a committee in which he
participated.)
3. When a caricature of a standard theory is under attack,
an appeal to authority may be used to clarify what the
theory really says.
4. An appeal to authority ought to be an adequate defense
for anyone accused of stupidity when their only sin was
being orthodox. The currently reigning orthodoxy, like
an allele fixed in the course of evolution, is worthy of
some respect, even if you are not sure yet whether it
was selection or drift that led to the current
situation.
 
Tim Tyler wrote:
> Jeffrey Turner <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
>
>
>>Sure it can happen by random genetic drift but that's a
>>slow process that by definition produces no useful
>>results. Useful means adaptive.
>
> Accidents can produce useful results.
>
> Because something is useful, that doesn't mean it is not
> an accident.
>
> Just as accidents can turn out to be useful - so
> adaptations can wind up being useless.
>
> Adaptations are not defined by their usefulness - though
> they were all once useful historically.

Do you think you're making sense? Can you explain the
"intelligent" part of nature that has a plan - you know, the
stuff that isn't accidental?

Everything is "accidental". Good accidents produce
individuals with an evolutionary advantage and that
individual's progeny eventually supplant its parent's
species, or perhaps some other species, in an ecological
niche. Bad accidents die off. The question here is of the
neutral accidents. I don't particularly think that whether
a person has blue eyes or brown eyes, insofar as that is
not an adaptation, is of much interest. The odds of ending
up with two species of humans, one blue-eyed and one brown-
eyed, is terribly remote. But I don't have to put food on
my table by writing a monograph like "Random Genetic Drift
and the Frequency of Brown Eyes in Manitoba in the
Nineteenth Century."

--Jeff

--
A man, a plan, a cat, a canal - Panama!

Ho, ho, ho, hee, hee, hee and a couple of ha, ha, has;
That's how we pass the day away, in the merry old land of
Oz.