Text 230, 223 rader
Skriven 2004-09-29 06:06:00 av John Edser (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Testing Evolution Via
=================================




> >>>>>>TT:-
> >>>>>>It acts to cause undirected -
> >>>>>>and most likely in the long term deleterious - changes in
> >>>>>>the population.

> >>>>>JE:-
> >>>>>Therefore, I  see no _rational_ argument that
> >>>>>can allow drift, which can only "cause undirected -
> >>>>>and most likely in the long term deleterious -
> >>>>>changes in the population" to cause evolution, yet
> >>>>>this remains the Neo Darwinistic position in 2004.

> >>>>TT:-
> >>>>That's a simple matter of definitions:
> >>>>Evolution is normally *defined* to be genetic change
> >>>>in a population.
> >>>>*Even* deleterious changes fit into that definition.
>
> >>>JE:-
> >>>Drift is just a defined random
> >>>process of sampling error.
> >>>All random processes remain ubiquitous.
> >>>Therefore, if you define any gene freq.
> >>>changes via genetic drift as "evolution"
> >>>and not as strictly "temporal variation" the
> >>>theory of evolution becomes a non refutable.

> >>BOH:-
> >>This is wrong.

> > JE:-
> > Dr O'Hara has never understood the experiment
> > I have proposed (please refer to Dr O'Hara's
> > entirely confused rely).

> BOH:-
> It is not clear to Dr. O'Hara which "confused reply" is being referred to.

JE:-
Here is a copy of my reply to Dr O'Hara's entirely "confused reply":
--------------------- copy ------------------------------------

> > JE:-
> > ...
> > I have described an experiment that can eliminate all
> > natural selection within an _expanding_ population
> > only allowing genetic drift as causative to allele
> > freq. changes. All you have to do is artificially
> > force all members of one population to raise the
> > exactly the same number of fertile forms to adulthood
> > where this number is larger than just a parental
> > replacement value.  The prediction is: all natural
> > selection must be halted within this experiment while
> > Darwinian fitness equality can remain enforced. Thus only
> > genetic drift (which cannot be eliminated) is now left
> > to cause "evolution".

> BOH:-
> No, you've deleted drift as well.  The only way drift can be
> re-introduced is for there to be genetic variation within a family
> (through segregation), but in this case you can no longer guanrantee
> "Darwinian fitness equality".  In other words, this doesn't allow you to
> have your cake and eat it.
> If you want to eliminate drift, then you need an infinite [effective]
> population size.

JE:-
Dr O'Hara's reply seems to be completely
confused. At the start Dr O'Hara
comments: "you've deleted drift as well"
when such an event is just experimentally
impossible.  This is because (via BOH's own
conclusion) "if you want to eliminate drift,
then you need an infinite [effective]
population size" which is an impossibility.

I never suggested an intention
to delete genetic drift simply because
I could not do so even if I wanted
to. My only intention was to delete Darwinian
natural selection for a significant time period.
This would allow a test of drift acting alone as
causative to "evolution" as well as my
definition of Darwinian fitness: the total
number of fertile forms raised to
fertile adulthood by each parent within
one population. Dr O'Hara appears to have
entirely missed my point. The experiment
is only designed to delete Darwinian natural
selection while leaving genetic drift for
sufficient time to test to refutation:

1) "Drift as evolution".
2) My definition of Darwinian
fitness as causative to evolution.

[NOTE: only my definition of Darwinian
fitness can be tested to refutation.
"Drift as evolution can only be tested
to non verification.]

My predictions for this experiment
are:

a) Drift acting alone without selection
for a significant period of time
within an expanding population will
only cause the dissolution of all
the individuals within that population.
Unless "dissolution" is redefined as
"evolution", drift without selection
cannot validly claim to cause "evolution".

b) Darwinian fitness (as I have defined
it) would be tested to refutation as the
only objective fitness that exists within
evolutionary theory. No other proposition
of fitness exists that can halt all selection
within a natural population.

c) Only a single level of selection
would now be required within evolutionary
theory.

The above would pave the way to:

i) Allow the rule: absolute fitness
cannot be selected to be lowered.

This would refute Hamilton's premise
that organism fitness altruism (OFA)
can evolve within nature as measured
by Hamilton's (uncorrected) rule.

ii) Argue that only absolute fitness
mutualization producing organism fitness
mutualism (OFM) can exist within nature
for all Darwinian fitness association ESS's
(evolutionary stable strategies).

iii) Argue that Darwinian fitness (as I
have defined it) is the biological maximand.

--------------- end of copy-----------------



> <snip>
> >>BOH:-
> >>Here are a few actual examples in the literature where
> >>people have actually used real data to test whether evolurion could be
> >>due to drift:
> >>Fisher, R. A., Ford. E.B., (1947). The spread of a gene in natural
> >>conditions in a colony of the moth Panaxia dominula L. Heredity
> 1:143-174.
> >>Koskinen M.T., Haugen, T.O., Primmer, C.R. (2002).  Contemporary
> >>fisherian life-history evolution in small salmonid populations.  Nature
> >>419: 826-830.
> >>Manly, B.F.J. (1985).  The Statistics of Natural Selection.  Chapman &
> >>Hall, London, U.K.
> >>Mueller, L. D., Wilcox, B. A. , Ehrlich, P. R. , Heckel, D. G. , Murphy,
> >>D. D. . 1985. A direct assessment of the role of genetic drift in
> >>determining allele frequency variation in populations of Euphydryas
> >>editha. Genetics 110: 495-511.
> >>I've thrown in Manly because he has a re-analysis of the Fisher & Ford
> >>data, as well as several other tests.  BTW, this list is not complete,
> >>only a few choice picks from a manuscript of mine.

> > JE:-
> > Dr O'Hara has failed to understand the
> > point of this discussion : TO PROVIDE
> > POPPERIAN POINTS OF REFUTATION for the
> > proposed evolutionary process of
> > drift acting without selection.

> BOH:-
> Dr. O'Hara has provided references to tests of precisely the hypotheses
> suggested, which indeed do provide refutations of the hypothesis that
> the changes in the populations studied were due to genetic drift.  He
> would advise Mr. Edser to read these references before commenting further.


JE:-
If I were Dr O'Hara I would refer to
myself in the 3rd person given the poor
quality of Dr O'Hara's replies.....

________________________________________
Please provide just one reference
to a point of refutation that exists
within the above for the hypothesis:
"drift can cause evolution without
selection".
________________________________________

Gene centric Neo Darwinists do not deal
in points of refutation they only deal in
points of verification. This is because
their version of epistemology is out of
the stone age.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 9/29/04 6:06:08 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)