PostA21
> > > JM:- Nature is free to choose its laws so that some of
> > > them may be
> > unverifiable.
> > JE:- Yes, but you can't ever _know_ that this is the
> > case, that is my point.
> [snip]
> JM:- There is very little that you can _know_ unless you
> are a God.
JE:- The reason why the above does not apply to the sciences
is because what you say you know must be able to be able to
be verified/refuted by an _independent_ observer. This will
be possible because a testable absolute assumption that
takes the form of a constant or a maximum/minimum value that
can be measured within nature exists within the theory. Your
supposition that "nature is free to choose its laws so that
some of them may be unverifiable" may or may not be true.
The point is, science cannot test and thus know such a
proposition to be true or false. Thus a referee has no
choice but to throw it out as non scientific, irrespective
of some peoples emotional attachments or its political
acceptance/value.
> JM:- However, you can have well justified beliefs, and
> one of the best justifications for belief is repeated
> survival in the face of serious attempts at refutation.
> That is my point.
JE:- Science does not deal directly with any belief. In a
free society you can believe anything you like but you have
no right to force any beliefs onto others. Science takes
beliefs and distils them down into testable theory. Beliefs
can only inspire a quest for a testable theory to represent
them within a scientific arena. Belief as inspiration is
very important but can be misused when attempts are made to
force beliefs into any scientific arena. Indeed, beliefs can
easily overcome reason via the emotion attached to them,
especially when tribal politics enters a discussion. This
can lead to the shooting of a referee who rules against
them, (just as Dr Moran suggested he would prefer, even if
his suggestion was only in jest). As a belief enters the
arena, the entire structure just collapses around it leaving
no other dispute resolution process other than violence.
Nature will evolve an idea by either making these ideas
contest in a rational arena or the people that believe them,
fight and die for them on a bloody battlefield. Nature does
not care which, but we have to if we wish to remain
civilised.
> JM:- John, I am embarrassed to admit that I am disputing
> with you here, and I don't properly understand your
> position.
JE:- Why should you be? Any civilised person agrees to
disagree within however, the arena of testable ideas.
However here our dispute runs deep because it contests the
validity of the arena itself. You wish to admit views that
can be refuted but not verified into a scientific arena. I
insist that you cannot. What I am arguing here is that you
have not realised that when you "admit" a non verifiable
view into the arena no theory actually entered. Only a
dressmaker's dummy with sword and shield entered in its
place. The theory stayed safely outside. Only when the dummy
is trounced can you know that it was just a dummy, i.e. when
it stands refuted. The idea, whatever it was, always remains
safely _outside_. Thus we can never now that it was true,
only that it was false. You cannot know what process causes
an observed random drift pattern only what process did _not
_cause it. Such a view is useful, if and only if, it remains
just a _hypothesis_. A hypothesis is not a theory. I cannot
stress this point enough. Just like the biologist creates
categories of living forms epistemologies create categories
of ideas. Theories, models and hypothesis are not equivalent
terms. An example of contesting hypothesis are the views
that evolution happens in fast jumps or is gradual. Both
hypothesis exist as a part of the one, same Darwinian theory
of evolution. A hypothesis is like a body part, e.g. an arm.
If you cut off an arm the body can still live and function
but the arm cannot live and function without the body. Thus
the _null hypothesis_ is not a _null theory_. No such animal
as a null theory exists. A null hypothesis only verifies
something by default when it stands non refuted This is the
theory of which it is just a part . The drift dummy that was
sent into the arena as just a null hypothesis was in fact
Darwinian random variation all dressed up with its own sword
and shield. An arm of Darwinian theory was cut off and sown
onto this dummy which had a sword (refutation) and shield
(logical self consistency) and made to defend itself. A now
wounded theory must wait bleeding outside because it has
become non testable without its right arm of "variation",
Note that this can be either temporal or non temporal. My
point is simply, heritable variation remains an essential
_part_ of Darwin's original theory (exactly as Darwin wrote
it). The part "random variation"cannot produce evolution in
its own right. It requires the complete Darwinian body: his
entire theory of evolution by natural selection.
A simplified model of a hypothesis of random variation
cannot contest NS (the testable theory it is just a part of)
for very obvious reasons. An arm cannot contest and win
against its own body such that only the arm wins and the
body loses (is refuted) allowing just an arm to now become
elevated to being a body in its own right. However, this is
exactly what gene centric Neo Darwinism has been suggesting
when it elevated drift as just a model hypothesis that can
only exist within a null hypothesis, to become a valid
theory of "evolution" independent of and contestable to, NS.
> JM:-
> 1. Any claim that both drift and NS are occurring is
> absurd.
JE:- Not "absurd" just "non testable", i.e. if both are
happening then drift has not been separated from NS as
causative. Drift, as a random _pattern _ (not a random
process) _can_ be _verified_ to happen all of the time in
nature. What is under dispute here is, can just the random
process, "sampling error", _alone_ be validly assumed to
have caused this observed random _pattern_? It cannot. Non
random _patterns_ of gene freq. change which define
evolution are also observed all of the time. However, they
can only be testably explained by Darwinian theory where
heritable random or non random variation is assumed. Here,
selection acts on a pool of heritable variation which can be
either temporal and non temporal. Thus "both drift and NS
are occurring" as patterns all of the time in nature. The
problem is to separate out what can cause what. The fact is,
drift cannot be separated from selection but selection can
be separated from drift.
We can test what causes NS but be cannot test as to what
exactly, causes drift. This does not matter because drift
was only a null _hypothesis_ but NS constitutes a testable
_theory_ of nature of which the drift null hypothesis was
just a part. Note that the testability of NS is not changed
if assumed random variation stands refuted , i.e. becomes
non random, e.g. the verification of meiotic drive genes as
non random meiosis.
> JM:- I'm not sure whether we are disputing the meaning of
> words, deep issues of philosophy, or the biological facts.
> Since I have learned that I frequently don't understand
> you when you express your position in your language, it
> would help me if you make an attempt to express your
> position in my language. Please read through the following
> list of "position statements" and indicate which most
> closely approximates your position. Then, change my
> wording, if necessary to exactly describe your position.
> ALL changes in gene frequency are caused by either
> mutation or selection.
JE:- Many different gene freq. _patterns_ can be verified
(observed and documented) within nature. The job of the
scientist is to document them, sort them into categories and
try to explain what caused them.
Patterns of gene freq. can be validly suggested to be caused
by mutation, sampling error, meiosis, reproduction,
replication, death, virus infection and natural selection.
Two basic categories exist for all of these processes:
random and non random. Mutation, sampling error and meiosis
(which now stands refuted as a random process) are
classified as random processes. Reproduction, replication,
death, virus infection and selection are classified as non
random processes. The random processes of
mutation/drift/meiosis constitute "variation" where a
pattern of variation is just the one, same pattern: a random
pattern. This category of "variation" is classified into
heritable and non heritable. The processes that act on
heritable variation are all the non random processes in the
list. However these processes all become a sub category of
NS. Thus we end up with a testable theory of evolution
whereby random processes of variation that can only produce
random patterns, are acted on by the non random process of
NS causing a _non_ random change in gene. freq. in one
population (as well as a million other things).
Mutation is regarded as just another random process. If you
are attempting to substitute the non verifiable null
hypothesis of sampling error as causative to observable
drift patterns in nature with a _non_ random process of
mutation, which if true, could be verified as causative,
then this attempt fails because mutation is just another
random process. However, like drift _rates_, mutation
_rates_ can be selected providing a prima face case to
suggest that NS is involved with both random patterns where
NS remains a fully testable NON random process. .
> Selection IS a change in gene frequencies due to
> differences in birth or death rates.
JE:- Selection is any non random change in gene frequencies
due to differences in absolute fitness between Darwinian
selectee's within the same population.
>snip<
> JM:- If a gene increases in frequency by differences in
> birth and death rates, then it is being selected,
> regardless of whether we understand the causes of the
> difference in birth and death rates
JE:- If the above constitutes a random pattern then "no"
otherwise, "yes".
Just _any_ old gene freq change cannot constitute valid
evolution unless you demote the theory of evolution to just
a non testable status. The referee just throws out such a
view so science ends up with nothing.
> JM:-
> 2. I understand that some mutations are approximately
> neutral selectively, and I agree that Kimura's
> mathematics is correct in the same sense that Fisher's
> math is correct - it may be useful as a somewhat
> oversimplified model that provides some limited
> insight. However, it is wrong to make it sound as if
> Kimura is somehow contesting NS. Kimura is part of NS.
JE:- Yes. You cannot allow a simplified model to contest the
theory it is just a simplification from..
Please read Dr Moran's Reply. He has explicitly stated that
drift can cause evolution without selection, i.e. in his
opinion drift can be validly separated from NS as causative
to evolution. I have stated time and time again that drift
as causative to gene freq. change and selection as
causative to the same event, cannot be separated within any
_testable_ theory of evolution.
It just never occurs to gene centric Neo Darwinism that:
1) Drift cannot be separated from selection but selection
can be separated from drift, as causative to a gene freq.
change in one population.
2) Their view is a valid model but an invalid theory.
3) Darwin's view is a valid theory and not just a model.
4) It is invalid to contest a theory against its own
simplified model within any scientific arena.
> JM:_
> 3. Drift is conceptually distinguishable from NS, but it
> is scientific abdication of responsibility to actually
> hypothesize or believe in drift. Scientists are
> supposed to seek deterministic explanations for the
> world.
JE:- I would use the word "testable" instead of
"deterministic" because "determinism" has dictatorial
overtones of "absolutes" while "testable " only requires
"absolute assumptions". Enormous confusion still exists as
to their massive difference.
> JM:- A philosophically correct scientist will treat the
> so-called evidence for drift as an unsolved problem for
> another day, rather than actively embracing it. No
> philosophically correct scientist can adhere to an
> unverifiable hypothesis.
JE:- "A philosophically correct scientist" would agree that
not all _patterns_ can be classified as non random, that is
all. Thus, he/she must agree to a rule that defines when any
_pattern_ is random or non random. All of statistics is
devoted to this complex subject.
Now our "philosophically correct scientist" must propose
causation/causations for each verified pattern type. These
are termed _processes_. They are all, just guesses and they
all exist within two categories: random and non random. A
random process is only assumed to cause a random pattern.
However a non random process empirically, causes _both_.
Thus, it is possible to separate a random process from a non
random process by testing. A random process is refuted when
the pattern it is said to cause is non random. However it is
NOT verified when the pattern it was purported to cause
remains random (as we have agreed). All random patterns are
the same. OTOH, an observed _non_ random pattern can
verify/refute a unique non random process because all non
random patterns are different to each other. Thus the focus
of the sciences is on separating, via unbiased testing, all
proposed non random process that are on the table (actually
guessed). Thus: "no philosophically correct scientist " can
adhere to an unverifiable hypothesis in the absence of the
theory of which any hypothesis or simplified model of that
hypothesis remains just a _part_.
> Scientist has looked for an adaptive explanation for an
> allele fixation, such an explanation has been found. A
> scientist would be foolish to believe that this trend will
> not continue. Ultimately, almost all allele changes will
> be understood to have been caused by selection.
JE:- The only testable theory we have to explain any
allele freq. change within a population is NS. Random
patterns of allele freq. change must be thrown out as not
significant. Throwing out random patterns as a valid test
of any process has always been a standard scientific
practice. One day Darwinian theory will stand refuted and
be replaced by a better view. It is a misuse of the random
process of sampling error to suggest that it can refute
and replace NS .
Random and non random variation have always been a part of
Darwinian selection theory and cannot be separated from it.
This being the case, selection is testably, the only cause
of evolution that exists within evolutionary theory.
Variation can limit selection but cannot cause evolution.
Selection can select for rates of random variation both
temporal and non temporal.
> 5. Drift is absurd because it postulates selectively
> neutral mutations. That is, it assumes that the
> selective advantage is exactly zero. But it should be
> obvious that exactly zero is effectively impossible.
> Every mutation must have some small positive or
> negative effect, and therefore will be subject to
> selection.
JE:- The above is the position for drift as a testable
theory. However, drift is NOT a testable theory it just is
an over simplified model of a testable theory. Thus 5. does
not apply UNLESS this simplified model is _misused_ to
contest the theory it was simplified from. Since this has
been the case within gene centric Neo Darwinism for over 50
years, then 5 stands as a true critique of the _misuse_ of
drift as causative to evolution and not to just causative to
temporal variation. The cost of this on going misuse is the
quality of the questions asked of drift. This cost has been
considerable.
>snip<
Respectfully,
John Edser Independent Researcher
PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia
[email protected]
] was