Dawkins on Kimura



[email protected] (Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 16:08:01 +0000 (UTC), John W Edser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Larry Moran wrote,
>
> >>> In a theory you have to prove an allele is ONLY
> >>> neutral. How do you do this?
>
> >> The easiest way is to check a large sample of a
> >> population to see if two alleles are in Hardy-Weinberg
> >> equilibrium. Did you not know that?
> >
> > Yes I did. Did you know that the Hardy-Weinberg
> > equilibrium requires an infinite population for such a
> > proof and only indicates a random distribution i.e. a
> > verified random PATTERN if such a proof ever existed?
>
> No, I did not know that. I suggest you write a letter to
> the editors of the major scientific journals and explain
> this to them. They seem to be under the impression that a
> Hardy- Weinberg distribution in real populations is
> evidence that an allele is not affecting fitness. At least
> that how it seems to me. These editors are constantly
> accepting papers that make such statements.
>
> > Assuming you did have an infinite population and had
> > proven the allele distribution pattern was indeed
> > neutal, what type of PROCESS can validly be suggested to
> > have caused this pattern?
>
> The process by which neutral alleles *change* in frequency
> in a population is called random genetic drift. Have you
> heard of it?
>
> > I note that you just snipped the meat of my post which
> > concerns the critical difference between a model and a
> > theory.
>
> I did. I'm not interested in your strange philosophy and
> it has no relevance to sci.bio.evolution.
>
> [snip]
>
> >>> Mr Moran simply evaded my proposition, _entirely_.
> >>> Since it is you and not me that insists that just a
> >>> random drift process can contest an win against
> >>> selection then it is you and not me that must answer
> >>> this question:
> >>> ___________________________________________
> >>> Can drift without selection cause evolution because
> >>> selection without drift definitely can?
> >>>
> >>> PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION
> >>> ___________________________________________
>
> >> The answer is yes.
> >
> > Thank you for answering the question.
>
> You're welcome. It's probably the fifth time that I've
> answered your question but I understand that you have to
> hear things many times before they start to sink in.

[LM]"have to hear things many times before they start to
sink in." Such is the case for many.

> > How would you set up a real life experiment (not just a
> > thought experiment) to test your proposition?
>
> You start by accepting the standard minimal definition of
> evolution - change in the frequency of alleles in a
> population.

Oooo. A definition of [LM]"evolution." Dobzhansky gave the
word "evolution" this definition in 1937-- he redefined the
word. It's far, far easier to prove the reality/existence of
the 1937 meaning than the pre-1937 meaning.

> Then you create a neutral allele; for example, a base
> substitution in the defunct coding region of a pseudogene
> in some green algae. Insert the mutation into a cell. Grow
> the culture until you have lots and lots of green algae
> carrying the mutation.
>
> Dump 1000 litres of this culture into ten different small
> lakes that have a thriving population of the green algae
> (i.e. lots of individuals with the original wild-type
> allele). Sample the algae in each lake every year for 10-
> 20 years to see if the frequency of alleles in the
> population is changing.

Evolution (changing of allele frequencies in a population)
observed! Case closed. Creationists can't argue against
"evolution," so-defined. Down with the creation/ intelligent-
design hypothesis! Long live the *fact* of evolution
(totally mindless processes accounting for biological
complexity)!
 
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 02:46:11 +0000 (UTC),
John W Edser <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Moran wrote,
>> John Edser wrote,

[snip]

> Instead of just snipping questions about the difference
> between a theory and any simplified model derived from it,
> or the difference between a theory and a hypothesis which
> only constitutes one part of complete theory, I would
> strongly suggest you attempt to enter some discussion on
> this topic.

Nope, not interested. This is a science newsgroup and real
science is what I'm interested in. Take your philosophical
quibbles to some other newsgroup like alt.fan.popper.

[snip]

> Do you deny that in principle, NS can select for mutation
> and/or drift rates to be increased/decreased?

Yes.

[snip]

> The problem seems to me to be that you are an expert
> specialist model builder, in this field. Ask any
> specialist and they will suggest their speciality is more
> important than any other. This is because specialists do
> not necessarily know how their specialisation fits
> together to form a theory of nature. When you define
> drift as "evolution" then the hook that joins the drift
> carriage to the theory train becomes broken. Instead of
> having one testable theory you end up with sets of
> unlinked carriages needlessly crashing into each other on
> the same line. Generalists still remain out of in
> fashion. Until this situation changes, sadly, many
> specialists will inevitably end up misusing their
> valuable work. However, they will always resent any
> generalist suggesting this may be the case.

I'm a generalist. I see evolution working in many different
ways, including some of the higher level process of
macroevolution. An example of over-specialization would be
someone who insists that natural selection is the only
valid process of evolution and Charles Darwin was the only
person who got it right. Do you know any extreme
specialists like that?

[snip]

>> The process by which neutral alleles *change* in
>> frequency in a population is called random genetic drift.
>> Have you heard of it?
>
> Yes, the _modelling process_ by which _defined_ neutral
> alleles just randomly change in frequency in a population
> is called random genetic drift. It remains entirely, a
> random process. This process only produces one type of
> pattern: a random _pattern_.

Nope, you're wrong again. The process leads to either the
elimination of the neutral allele or its fixation in the
population. Neither of these could be considered a random
pattern. How can you argue so strongly against something
that you don't understand? You've been given plenty of
opportunity to learn about random genetic drift but you have
refused to learn. Why is that?

> Is it true or false to claim that a _non_ random process
> may have caused this random pattern?

It is true that some people claim that a non-random process
could somehow account for the observations.

It is also true that there could actually be some mysterious
process going on that just happens to look like it's
consistent with everything we know about population genetics
but actually violates it. It's also possible that there was
a second shooter on the grassy knoll; Elvis is living in
Florida; OJ Simpson is innocent; there are weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq; and the US Air Force has proof that an
alien ship crashed in Roswell.

[snip]

>> > I note that you just snipped the meat of my post which
>> > concerns the critical difference between a model and a
>> > theory.
>
>> I did. I'm not interested in your strange philosophy and
>> it has no relevance to sci.bio.evolution.
>
> So you think that the terms, "theories", "models" and
> "hypothesis" all mean exactly the same thing? Why then did
> anybody bother to call them different names? Indeed, it
> seems to me that it is your "philosophy" that appears
> "strange" because it simply equates the above terms!
> Obviously, it remains convenient for you as a model
> builder to assume that they are all just equivalent
> because you will not now have to bother yourself about
> sorting out how your models mesh with other models from
> different specialist fields to form a valid theory or just
> hypothesis of a theory.

I'm not interested in your strange views of *my* philosophy.

Larry Moran
 
Hi Bill,

in article [email protected], William Morse
at [email protected] wrote on 4/10/04 7:46 PM:

> Guy Hoelzer <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> in article [email protected], William
>> Morse at [email protected] wrote on 4/8/04 4:51 PM:
>
>>> And my point is that selection doesn't stop, it is only
>>> that under some (perhaps many) circumstances it keeps
>>> selecting the same thing. That may mean that you will
>>> only _see_ it sporadically, but it doesn't mean it is
>>> not occurring. If you offer me a choice between a and b
>>> over and over, and I choose b over and over without
>>> fail, does that mean no choice is being made?
>
>> I agree that stabilizing selection is a form of
>> selection, and probably the most common form of selection
>> at this point in time. [I suspect that directional
>> selection was more prominent in the earliest stages of
>> life on earth, and perhaps following mass extinctions.]
>> However, even stabilizing selection does not manifest
>> when there is no heritable variation for fitness. The
>> most compelling argument I know of supporting your claim
>> that selection doesn't stop is the general form of the
>> Hamilton/Zuk model of host/parasite coevolution, which
>> they constructed to underpin the Good Genes process of
>> epigamic trait evolution. The basic point is also
>> effectively captured by the Red Queen hypothesis. In a
>> coevolutionary context, the biotic environment
>> continuously and rapidly changes in response to evolution
>> of the focal species, which would tend to maintain at
>> least some heritable variation for fitness. This argument
>> convinces me to concede that selection may not stop in
>> regard to traits involved in social or interspecific
>> interactions when interacting partners are entrained in a
>> coevolutionary network. Outside of this context, I remain
>> skeptical.
>
>
> How do I explain my point? Let's try this one. I work at a
> place with a dress code - you have to wear a blue blazer.
> Fifty people work there. Every day, one hundred people
> show up with blazers. Some of them have 3 buttons, some
> have 2 buttons. Some of them have breast pockets, some
> don't. Some have wide lapels, some have narrow lapels.
> Fifty of those who show up get chosen to work. Over the
> years, the number of blazers with 3
> vs. 2 buttons, the number with and without breast pockets,
> and the number with wide vs narrow lapels changes, but
> all 50 are always blue. Why are they always blue? Is
> it because nobody ever shows up with a black one? No.
> It is because whenever somebody does wear a black one
> into work, they don't get chosen! Is there any
> evolution in coat color? No there is not. Is there
> selection for coat color? Yes there most certainly is.
>
> I am guessing you are in fact arguing a different point,
> namely how much of variation is neutral. I thought I had
> explained why I disagree with that point, but it seemed
> not to take. I have in the above simplified to an extreme
> so we can focus on our actual point of disagreement.

Well... I don't disagree with anything you have said here.
Indeed, selection will continue to weed out hopelessly
inviable individuals generated in constant environments. The
closest thing I have to a negative criticism of your point
is that the process of selection in such a situation favors
developmental canalization, which reduces the frequency with
which inviable individuals appear. In the story of your
workplace, the frequency with which upstart individuals show
up in black jackets would invariably diminish with time.

For the most part, I don't see any important disagreement
between us on the points you are making.

Cheers,

Guy
 
"John Wilkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter F. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "John Wilkins" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > message news:[email protected]...
> > > > >CURSES: Conditioned-in Unconsciously Remembered
> > > > >Stressors Effecting
Symptoms;
> > > >
> > > > Thank you. That, of course, completely clears things
> > > > up.
> > >
> > > Yes, but what it clears up is Peter's penchant for
> > > meaningless
acronyms.
> >
> > It could just be that you are doing some wishy-washy
> > wishful AEVASIVE thinking, of an inEPT kind. ;-)
> >
> How would I know if I can't understand the question?

You got me stumped! You did by formulating this question
imprecisely (and ambiguously) enough for me to not know how
to answer it. :)

P
 
PostA27
> >> Speaking of maximization, I don't follow your reasoning
> >> in asserting that there must exist a maximum fitness
> >> value if selection is to generically diminish heritable
> >> variation for fitness. I don't think that Fisher made
> >> this assumption.

> > I may well be wrong, but my intuition is that if you
> > have a range of values in a population (fitness) x1..xn,
> > and you have a function (selection) about which the only
> > thing you know is that it will increase the value, i.e.
> > f(x) > x, you cannot state that the range f(x1).. f(xn)
> > will be less than the range x1..xn unless there is an
> > upper bound on f
> > (xn).

> GH:- Hmmm. I don't have a direct response, but this
> framework does not seem right for the concept of fitness
> for which values only have meaning in relation to other
> fitness values in the population. In other words,
despite
> JE's constant assertions to the contrary, fitness is only
> sensible as a relative measure. If I tell you, for
> example, that I know of an
individual
> that gave birth to 1000 offspring, you would not be able
> to tell me
whether
> that individual had high or low fitness. Even if I told
> you that all of

> couldn't tell me whether her fitness was high or low. Even
> if I told you that all 1000 offspring successfully
> reproduced themselves, you wouldn't know enough. Of
> course, I set up this thought experiment to imply that
this
> mother had high fitness; but this would be a false
> impression if the
average
> individual in the same population had 1000000
> reproductively active offspring.

JE:- It all comes down to the simple fact that unless at
least one algebraic term is a constant/maximum/minimum
within an equation or inequality, the expression remains
arbitrary. This means a relative measure of things remains
possible but is not sufficient. As Einstein noted, if you
are sitting in a train next to another on a station and
just one of t he trains moves, unless you have a view of
the platform (a constant) you cannot know if your train was
doing the moving or not. I think we have all experienced
this. From an epistemological perspective this means that
two _contradictory_ hypothesis of causation are verified
simultaneously, i.e. _both_ train A and train B were
verified as standing still or moving. Only the platform
reference allows one train to be verified and the other
refuted, as moving. Thus without the platform reference,
neither hypothesis of which train was in fact moving can be
tested even though a relative difference between the trains
can be exactly measured. A relative measure is never enough
to test any proposition. One of the best examples of this
is Hamilton's rule which only measures the relative fitness
between rb and c. Organism fitness altruism (OFA) is said
to operate when c is positive and organism fitness
mutualism (OFM) when c is negative. Because only a relative
difference can be measured since no
constant/maximum/minimum general term ( the integer 0 is
not such a term) exists, then Hamilton is just sitting in a
train viewing another without a platform as reference and
has incorrectly concluded that he knows which train moved
(can tell the difference between OFA and OFM). He cannot.
Unless Hamilton views the platform ( includes a defined
time frame over which c is measured or includes the maximal
fitness of the donor K within the rule) he cannot know when
OFA or OFM were operating _within_ his rule. When K is
included OFA refutes in favour of OFM. Thus Hamilton's rule
has been misused for over 50m years to support OFA when
classical group selection failed to be able to do so.
Nobody will reply to this argument, they simply evade it.

Similar misuses of only relatives measures within gene
centric Neo Darwinism remain endemic. No will exists to
tackle such a basic. For over 4 years I have attempted to
bring this ongoing error into focus using sbe discussion and
have been derided for my efforts.

Respectfully,

John Edser Independent Researcher PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW
2105 Australia

[email protected]
 
Jim Menegay wrote:

> "Anon." <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>How can you get drift with Ne=infinity? We've thought
>>about it, and some have even bee into the field and
>>sampled midlew. It's diverse, and there's a lot of it
>>about, so Ne=infinity is a good approximation. I think my
>>point is that any null hypothesis has to be referenced to
>>the species and population you're studying.
>
>
> If you define "drift" to be non-selective fixation of
> alleles, then Ne=infinity seems to rule it out. But,
> if you define "drift" as non-selective change in gene
> frequencies, then you need an even larger population
> to stop drift in its tracks - you need SQRT(Ne)=
> infinity. ;-)
>
> Other reasons for doubting the importance of drift in
> mildew are a presumably small genome with little junk,
> presumed strong expressed codon preferences making even
> synonymous substitutions non-neutral,

>
Actually, the genome is large and full of **** (to put
it mildly).

> It may well be that there is no significant drift in
> mildew, but this doesn't argue that drift is an
> inappropriate null hypothesis. It just means that, in this
> species, the null hypothesis is refuted.
>
Yes, and so for any hypothesis produced now, it's not even
worth bringing up!

My wider point was that insisting that "X should always be
the null hypothesis" seems a bit naïve. You'll (almost)
always find cases where it's a non-starter, and I'd rather
we thought about the specific system we're working with
before producing hypotheses. Context is all!

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
 
PostA28

> > JE:- Instead of just snipping questions about the
> > difference between a theory and any simplified model
> > derived from it, or the difference between a theory and
> > a hypothesis which only constitutes one part of complete
> > theory, I would strongly suggest you attempt to enter
> > some discussion on this topic.

> LM:- Nope, not interested. This is a science newsgroup and
> real science is what I'm interested in. Take your
> philosophical quibbles to some other newsgroup like
> alt.fan.popper.

JE:- Dr Moran wishes to be granted a blank cheque to be able
to say anything that he and his tribe wishes to say, in the
name of science where the public are forced to pay for it
out of their taxes. If Dr Moran had his way, the scientific
arena would become transformed into a Star Chamber, the
evolution of scientific ideas would grind to a halt and
freedom and democracy as we know it today would cease.
Unless Dr Moran knows the difference between a theory, a
hypothesis and a model, drift research can only hinder and
not increase, the progress of evolutionary theory.
Consistent misuse of Drift models by Moran et al will allow
creationists to ridicule Neo Darwinism and bring all
evolutionary research, NEEDLESSLY, into disrepute.

> [snip]

> > JE:- Do you deny that in principle, NS can select for
> > mutation and/or drift rates to be increased/decreased?

LM:-
> Yes.

JE:- OK. The above view is easily refuted. Please note that
what is under test is the RATE of drift and/or mutation,
L.N. each drift and mutation event remains unpredictable but
the frequency per unit time of them could be increased
or decreased in a _significant_ way using natural
selection.

Sampling error just is a function of sample size. The larger
the sample size compared to the total being sampled, the
smaller is the rate of drift. Thus all selection has to do
to select for a rate of drift is increase/decrease the
sample size. Thus for selection to be able to "in principle"
select for drift _rates_, all you need to show is that
selection can in principle, increase or decrease a sample
size. Drift can take many biological forms. To illustrate
the refutation of Dr Moran's position, I will use founder
effect which is a well documented allopatric event. I am NOT
claiming that all drift events are founder effects! Many
more complex sympatric drift events exist. However, in
principle they are all just the same type of event: a random
sampling error event.

In founder effect a group migrate to start a new colony as a
sample of a much larger distant parental colony. The size of
any group migrating is in principle, under selective
control. The parents of migrating individuals could increase
or decrease their Darwinian fitness using migration. If the
parental population is at a carrying capacity then migration
becomes a good option because parents have the chance of
starting another absolute fitness total within another
population. The parents that found a colony with just the
right numbers so as to avoid things like inbreeding
depression or a too small a sample of the parental
population's genes providing less variation where more
variation may be needed, are selected against the parents
that do not.

> [snip]

> > JE:- The problem seems to me to be that you are an
> > expert specialist model builder, in this field. Ask any
> > specialist and they will suggest their speciality is
> > more important than any other. This is because
> > specialists do not necessarily know how their
> > specialisation fits together to form a theory of nature.
> > When you define drift as "evolution" then the hook that
> > joins the drift carriage to the theory train becomes
> > broken. Instead of having one testable theory you end up
> > with sets of unlinked carriages needlessly crashing into
> > each other on the same line. Generalists still remain
> > out of in fashion. Until this situation changes, sadly,
> > many specialists will inevitably end up misusing their
> > valuable work. However, they will always resent any
> > generalist suggesting this may be the case.

> LM:- I'm a generalist. I see evolution working in many
> different ways, including some of the higher level
> process of macroevolution. An example of over-
> specialization would be someone who insists that
> natural selection is the only valid process of
> evolution and Charles Darwin was the only person who
> got it right. Do you know any extreme specialists like
> that?

JE:- Why do you continue to misrepresent my view? I
simply stated that Darwin's theory, exactly as he stated
it, remains the only _testable_ theory of evolution we
have, even today. Such a position may be unpalatable to
you but it does remain fully testable. A plethora of non
testable theories have always existed and still exist
today. Don't you care if a view is testable or not? Do
you care about what the criteria of testability or are
you just content to sit back and dictate what nature is
to please your own tribe?

> [snip]

> >> LM;- The process by which neutral alleles *change* in
> >> frequency in a population is called random genetic
> >> drift. Have you heard of it?

> > JE:- Yes, the _modelling process_ by which _defined_
> > neutral alleles just randomly change in frequency in a
> > population is called random genetic drift. It remains
> > entirely, a random process. This process only produces
> > one type of pattern: a random _pattern_.

> LM:- Nope, you're wrong again. The process leads to either
> the elimination of the neutral allele or its fixation
> in the population. Neither of these could be considered
> a random pattern.

JE:- Incorrect. Non reversible patterns can validly be
tested to be just a random pattern.

> LM:- How can you argue so strongly against something that
> you don't understand?

JE:- Sampling error is easy to understand. A child of ten
can understand it. You do not understand epistemology and
have displayed no interest at all in understanding it.
Consequently, you have consistently misused drift models of
evolution causing evolutionary theory unnecessary damage
and ridicule.

> LM:- You've been given plenty of opportunity to learn
> about random genetic drift but you have refused to
> learn. Why is that?

JE:- You've been given plenty of opportunity to learn about
the epistemology of random genetic processes but you have
refused to learn. Why is that?

> > JE:- it true or false to claim that a _non_ random
> > process may have caused this random pattern?

> LM:- It is true that some people claim that a non-random
> process could somehow account for the observations.

JE:- Is it not a fact than almost any non random process you
might like to name can be documented to routinely produce
random patterns?

> LM:- It is also true that there could actually be some
> mysterious process going on that just happens to look
> like it's consistent with everything we know about
> population genetics but actually violates it. It's also
> possible that there was a second shooter on the grassy
> knoll; Elvis is living in Florida; OJ Simpson is
> innocent; there are weapons of mass destruction in
> Iraq; and the US Air Force has proof that an alien ship
> crashed in Roswell.

JE:- Of course. This is why science has always thrown out
random patterns as definitive to anything. Why are you and
the drift school of evolution reversing the scientific
method, allowing random patterns to now become definite to
just a random drift process when such an event is impossible
to verify?

> [snip]

> >> > I note that you just snipped the meat of my post
> >> > which concerns the critical difference between a
> >> > model and a theory.

> >> LM:- I did. I'm not interested in your strange
> >> philosophy and it has no relevance to
> >> sci.bio.evolution.

> > JE:- So you think that the terms, "theories", "models"
> > and "hypothesis" all mean exactly the same thing? Why
> > then did anybody bother to call them different names?
> > Indeed, it seems to me that it is your "philosophy" that
> > appears "strange" because it simply equates the above
> > terms! Obviously, it remains convenient for you as a
> > model builder to assume that they are all just
> > equivalent because you will not now have to bother
> > yourself about sorting out how your models mesh with
> > other models from different specialist fields to form a
> > valid theory or just hypothesis of a theory.

> LM:- I'm not interested in your strange views of *my*
> philosophy.

JE:- Strange views of your philosophy? You have adequately
demonstrated that you do not have a philosophy. Epistemology
for you, is probably just something for retirees to
entertain themselves with, along with basket weaving...

___________________________________________
Why did you just snip my answer re: a test of your
proposition that drift can cause evolution without
selection? Your assumption, that is was valid to assume as
true, the proposition that was under test before you test
it, was outrageous. Were you trying to be funny?

Do you deny that you must control all NS within a population
and then show that this population can continue to evolve
without NS to prove your proposition?

It is possible, within a laboratory population, to remove
all NS. All you have to do is maintain a population of
parental selectee's with exactly the same reproductive
totals of _fertile_ forms. Such an experiment is just a
verification of Darwinian selection, i.e. Darwinism, exactly
as Darwin wrote it, predicts that no evolution of that
population can eventuate, i.e. the gene freq. _would _
change using just random processes like as mutation and
drift and meiosis, but the net result would only be the
dissipation of the population until selection forces its way
into this artificial situation to correct the rate of
dissipation. Dissipation is not evolution, or do you think
that it is?

______________________________________________

Best Wishes,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email protected]
 
Larry Moran <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> John W Edser <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Do you deny that in principle, NS can select for
> > mutation and/or drift rates to be increased/decreased?
>
> Yes.

Williams in 1966 argued it was impossible - but I think we
can say that his argument about how it would require group-
level selection is now toast.

Natural selection made most of the gene repair and error
correction machinery in the cell - and it has some control
over how much fuel cells burn, and what happens to the
resulting exhaust products.

As a result it has a great deal of influence on the
resulting mutation rate.

It doesn't /just/ use this control to turn the mutation
rate down.

At some point the cost of correcting all the errors, the
fancy clean-burning equipment, etc. becomes prohibitive.

At that point, evolution will happily trade resources and
fuel for a few extra mutations.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
"John W Edser" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> PostA27
[snip]
> When K is included OFA refutes in favour of OFM. Thus
> Hamilton's rule has been misused for over 50m years to
> support OFA when classical group selection failed to be
> able to do so. Nobody will reply to this argument, they
> simply evade it.

"50m years" John? Was this a typo, or a test to see
whether your argument is being evaded after reading it or
before? ;-)

Speaking only for myself, I believe that I have made an
honest attempt to understand the "rb>K-c" aspect of your
system, but it simply makes no sense to me. Your writing on
other topics is more understandable - sometimes I agree, and
sometimes I disagree. But "rb>K-c" and "absolute
assumptions" just don't create any intelligible picture in
my mind. I have no choice but to evade. Sorry about that.
 
John W Edser <[email protected]> on 13 Apr 2004:
> > > JE:- Instead of just snipping questions about the
> > > difference between a theory and any simplified model
> > > derived from it, or the difference between a theory
> > > and a hypothesis which only constitutes one part of
> > > complete theory, I would strongly suggest you attempt
> > > to enter some discussion on this topic.

[JE]"Instead of just snipping questions about... I would
strongly suggest you attempt to enter some discussion on
this topic." Larry has always responded to my questions, and
responded with thorough, thoughtful answers. To illustrate:

----------------------------------------------------
> [LM]"several mechanisms of evolution in addition to
> natural selection." What are the names of all of those
> mechanisms?

Random genetic drift is the most important.

> Starting from a fruit fly eye in a fruit fly population,
> about how many years would it take for [LM]"random genetic
> drift" to produce a dog's eye in a dog population?

12,248,304 years exactly.
----------------------------------------------------

Yet another reply conducive to the continuance of discussion
appeared in this response to the question [df]"What are all
the beneficial mutations leading to beneficial novelties in
form of which you are aware?":
[LM]"That's not part of my essay ["The Modern Synthesis of
Genetics and Evolution"]."

See http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrnc7mp1l.1cf.lamora-
n%40bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca

> > LM:- Nope, not interested. This is a science newsgroup
> > and real science is what I'm interested in. Take your
> > philosophical quibbles to some other newsgroup like
> > alt.fan.popper.
>
> JE:- Dr Moran wishes to be granted a blank cheque to be
> able to say anything that he and his tribe wishes to say,
> in the name of science where the public are forced to pay
> for it out of their taxes. If Dr Moran had his way, the
> scientific arena would become transformed into a Star
> Chamber, the evolution of scientific ideas would grind to
> a halt and freedom and democracy as we know it today would
> cease. Unless Dr Moran knows the difference between a
> theory, a hypothesis and a model, drift research can only
> hinder and not increase, the progress of evolutionary
> theory. Consistent misuse of Drift models by Moran et al
> will allow creationists to ridicule Neo Darwinism and
> bring all evolutionary research, NEEDLESSLY, into
> disrepute.

Larry will hopefully soon stop giving aid and comfort to the
anti-science ID creationist threat. I was very disappointed
to see him stating: Gould's defense of saltation as a
possible mode of evolution is now widely accepted. Even
Richard Dawkins has invoked it on at least one occasion.
Jeffrey Schwartz has written a whole book about it. Today
nobody seriously questions the possibility of evolution by
saltation.

And it was like daggers in my heart when he ended another
post with: Larry (who does not mourn the death of the
synthetic theory) Moran

See http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bb5ljo%24ve4%241%40bi-
oinfo.med.utoronto.ca and http://www.google.com/groups?selm-
=slrnbvtq5q.6ga.lamoran%40bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca

[snip]

> JE:- Sampling error is easy to understand. A child of ten
> can understand it. You do not understand epistemology and
> have displayed no interest at all in understanding it.
> Consequently, you have consistently misused drift models
> of evolution causing evolutionary theory unnecessary
> damage and ridicule.
>
> > LM:-

[snip]
 
PostA34

>snip<

> JM:- Speaking only for myself, I believe that I have made
> an honest attempt to understand the "rb>K-c" aspect of
> your system, but it simply makes no sense to me.

The maximum K just represents the total Darwinian fitness of
the donor. This is numerically eqivalent to cmax (the
maximum cost the donor can expect to pay). You have to
inlcude K or a specific time frame over which an
accumulative measure of c can eventuate within and not
outside of, the rule to be able to suggest when OFA or OFM
is operating otherwise the entire rule just remains
arbitrary.

> JM:- Your writing on other topics is more understandable -
> sometimes I agree, and sometimes I disagree. But "rb>K-c"
> and "absolute assumptions" just don't create any
> intelligible picture in my mind. I have no choice but to
> evade. Sorry about that.

JE:- An absolute assumption is just any defined
maximum/minimum/ constant, i.e. _anything _that is not just
a variable. Surely this is not difficult to understand?
Isn't it self explanatory that any expession depends on the
relationship of many variables to an implicit or explicit
absolute assumption/assumptions? Do you agree that any
expression that does not contain a t least one absolute
assumpion, either explicly or implicitly, remains arbitrary?

If you look back you both agreed and disagreed with:

rb>K-c

so I have no idea where you stand.

______________________________________________
Do you agree that just a relative measure of a fitness
difference over only one instant in time is not sufficient ,
i.e the difference between rb and c at just one moment in
time remains insufficient to measure when the cost c
represents a loss or a gain to the donor?
______________________________________________

Respectfully,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email protected]
 
PostA39
> BOH:- My wider point was that insisting that "X should
> always be the null hypothesis" seems a bit naïve. You'll
> (almost) always find cases where it's a non-starter, and
> I'd rather we thought about the specific system we're
> working with before producing hypotheses. Context is all!

JE:- Yes "context is all". What is the fitness context of
any genomic gene?

Regards,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email protected]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back