The Testability Of Genetic Drift.

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by John Edser, Mar 12, 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.

    LM:- I agree.

    JE:- Please state _exactly_ what you agreed to.

    LN:- There's no dilemma so it's a waste to time to
    talk about it.

    JE:- NO, it is a waste of 50 years of modelling mostly paid
    for by _other_ peoples money,
    L.O. hapless taxpayers who understand little about how their
    money was being invested, if researchers fail to spend
    time and effort working out a _final_ conclusion as to
    WHY Haldane's model predicted a _false_ dilemma.
    Lessons _must_ be learnt so the same mistake is not
    repeated and future monies not wasted on similar futile
    exercises. Do you agree or disagree?

    > JE:- 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_.

    LP:- The standard minimal definition of evolution is the
    change in the frequency of heritable characteristics in a
    population over time.

    JE:- Yes, but this gene centric biased "standard minimal
    definition of evolution" is hopelessly wrong.

    LQ:- These changes can happen by the stochastic process
    known as random genetic drift.

    JE:- Random patterns can be caused by EITHER random or non
    random processes, i.e. just observing a random event does
    NOT mean you can now validly conclude that ONLY a random
    process had caused it. This being the case, you can never
    rule out that a non random process such as selection
    _didn't_ cause it.

    LR:- The effects of random genetic drift are just as
    testable as the effects of natural selection, which also
    has a large stochastic component.

    JE:- Darwinian selection is NOT composed of just a
    "stochastic component", is it! The Darwinian theory of
    evolution by natural selection (which remains the only
    testable theory we have) remains a very _exact_ but very
    simple, logic. The parent that reproduces the most fertile
    forms within one population is naturally selected. All you
    have to do to exactly calculate one Darwinian selective
    event is compare all parental fertile form totals within one
    population, at one point in time. Nothing could be more
    simple, more exact, or testable.

    Suggesting that an assumed random process such as sampling
    error is as testable as a non random process like as
    selection, is patently absurd. All random patterns produce
    the _same_ pattern but all non random processes produce
    _unique_ patterns (plural). Many competing non random
    processes can be supposed to cause the same observed non
    random pattern but only one random process is supposed to
    cause a random pattern, i.e. all random processes are
    _identical_ but all non random processes are _unique_. Since
    it can be shown empirically that any non random process (no
    matter how you define it) can produce a random pattern, it
    becomes impossible to rule out a non random process as
    causative to any observed random pattern in nature such as
    genetic drift, i.e. selection _may_ have _validly_ caused
    it. Thus it remains a _serious_ error to suggest that drift
    is alone, causative to any observed random distribution of
    genes or that gene neutrality was only caused by a random
    process. The non adaptationist school of evolution is
    baseless. It is absurd to suggest that random processes can
    contest non random selection to produce evolution because at
    all times, random events may be assumed to caused by a non
    random process such as selection. Why do you think that
    throughout the history of science of science empirical
    observations that are classified as random patterns have
    been discarded?

    LS:- 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.

    JE:- Your mind remains closed to valid alternatives
    because of peer pressure to conform. This triggers an
    ancient emotional need to protect your own (Neo
    Darwinistic) tribe. All that is required of you is to
    define drift as temporal variation as just a thought
    experiment and then see what happens. Why do you find such
    an obvious exercise such a threat?

    LT:- 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

    JE:- Please attempt think for yourself.

    LU:- 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.

    JE:- I haven't even started.

    Best Wishes,

    John Edser Independent Researcher

    PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

    [email protected]