The importance Of Haldane's Dilemma In 2004

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by John Edser, Mar 10, 2004.

  1. John Edser

    John Edser Guest

    > JE To evade any discussion of consistent and chronic Neo
    > Darwinian misuse of oversimplified models within mostly
    > public funded evolutionary theory research so that
    > researcher's can keep their jobs.

    LM:- I already spend enough time attacking Ultra-Darwinians
    on purely scientific grounds. It's a waste of time (as
    well as being counterproductive) to attack them on fake
    issues such as Haldane's "dilemma." That only makes the
    attacker look foolish.

    JE:- Absurd. It was not the "Ultra-Darwinians" who are
    misusing gene centric models. Haldane's dilemma, (in which
    no dilemma existed), was just a product of ultra gene
    centric Neo Darwinistic assumptions and not Ultra-Darwinian
    assumptions. The same gene centric school of Neo Darwinism
    misuses, on an ongoing basis, mathematical models of
    sampling error to incorrectly suggest that just a random
    process, on its own, can validly to produce "evolution" when
    it can do nothing of the kind within any testable_science_.

    The reason why Haldane's Dilemma remains so important in
    2004 is because it focuses attention on ultra gene centric
    Neo Darwinian assumptions that remain in common use today,
    which however, the dilemma has proven to be false. Chief
    among these false assumptions is the dictum that only
    additive genetic information is to be considered heritable
    and thus selectable within evolutionary theory. Such an
    assumption requires the human genome to be much larger than
    it was empirically shown to be providing a false basis for
    Haldane's Dilemma. The ultra gene centric requirement for a
    huge human genome is based on this false dictum. If non
    additive genetic information is allowed as heritable and
    thus selectable genetic information, then the human genome
    can compress heritable information like a zip file allowing
    the human genome to be tiny, which it is.

    One (of many) corollaries to the misuse of the ultra gene
    centric false dictum of heritability is:

    An independent gene level of selection can now be assumed to
    exist because all gene fitness epistasis can be deleted.
    This in turn, allowed Hamilton's rule to be created and then
    misused to suggest that the rule could validly support
    organism fitness altruism (OFA) in nature after classical
    group selection failed to support
    LN. Since the sign of c within the rule remains _arbitrary_,
    such an event was always impossible
    L.O. all events defined as OFA within Hamilton's rule can
    also be validly assumed to be organism fitness
    mutualism (OFM) where OFM requires zero altruism.

    In short, gene centric Neo Darwinism has proven itself to be
    a litany of super simplified model misuse based on Post
    Modern epistemology. The ultra gene centric school has
    proven itself to be both arrogant and recalcitrant within
    sbe discussion. Thus almost no hope exists to reform it yet
    public funding continues to pay for it.

    UNLESS A FULL AND FRANK DISCUSSION EVENTUATES RE: OVER
    SIMPLIFIED MODEL MISUSE WITHIN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY,
    DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION WILL REMAIN A DESECRATION WITH
    THE SCIENCES.

    John Edser Independent Researcher

    PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

    [email protected]
     
    Tags:


  2. Larry Moran

    Larry Moran Guest

    On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 07:04:09 +0000 (UTC), John Edser <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Larry Moran wrote:
    >>John Edser wrote:

    >>> To evade any discussion of consistent and chronic Neo
    >>> Darwinian misuse of oversimplified models within mostly
    >>> public funded evolutionary theory research so that
    >>> researcher's can keep their jobs.
    >
    >> I already spend enough time attacking Ultra-Darwinians on
    >> purely scientific grounds. It's a waste of time (as well
    >> as being counterproductive) to attack them on fake issues
    >> such as Haldane's "dilemma." That only makes the attacker
    >> look foolish.
    >
    > Absurd. It was not the "Ultra-Darwinians" who are misusing
    > gene centric models. Haldane's dilemma, (in which no
    > dilemma existed), was just a product of ultra gene centric
    > Neo Darwinistic assumptions and not Ultra- Darwinian
    > assumptions.

    I agree. There's no dilemma so it's a waste to time to
    talk about it.

    > The same gene centric school of Neo Darwinism misuses, on
    > an ongoing basis, mathematical models of sampling error to
    > incorrectly suggest that just a random process, on its
    > own, can validly to produce "evolution" when it can do
    > nothing of the kind within any testable_science_.

    The standard minimal definition of evolution is the change
    in the frequency of heritable characteristics in a
    population over time. These changes can happen by the
    stochastic process known as random genetic drift. The
    effects of random genetic drift are just as testable as the
    effects of natural selection, which also has a large
    stochastic component. Both effects have been observed in
    real populations in the laboratory and in natural
    environments.

    The only way you can continue to ignore random genetic drift
    as a mechanism of evolution is to convince evolutionary
    biologists to re-define evolution in order to specifically
    exclude drift as a possible mechanism. This ain't gonna
    happen. Please stop pretending that your unusual ideas about
    evolution bear any relation to the actual science as
    practised by modern evolutionary biologists.

    Over the years you have raised a few valid points about the
    biases of biologists concerning "gene-centric" evolution.
    (You mentioned these few valid points about 700 times.)
    Unfortunately, the valid points are vastly outnumbered by
    three or four times as many postings on silly issues that
    are completely out of touch with reality. It's time to take
    a break. We've all heard (repeatedly) everything you have to
    say on these issues.

    Larry Moran
     
Loading...