J
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
biologists.
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]
>>> 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
biologists.
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]