Text 246, 181 rader
Skriven 2004-10-01 17:29:00 av John Edser (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Testing Evolution Via
=================================





> >>>>>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.

> BOH:-
> That was not a conclusion: it does not follow from the preceding
> paragraph.  It was a statement, or a recommendation.

JE:-
Dr O'Hara's protest that: "It was a statement, or a recommendation"
remains absurd via his own logic: "if you want to eliminate drift,
then you need an infinite [effective] population size" which is an
_impossibility_. Dr OHara's claim that I have deleted genetic
drift (which he now repeats!) requires me to have an infinite
population at my disposal (or just an infinite level of studpidity).

> > JE:-
> > I never suggested an intention
> > to delete genetic drift simply because
> > I could not do so even if I wanted
> > to.

> BOH:-
> But, alas, your experiment _does_ delete drift, as I have explained.

JE:-
Dr O'Hara's arrogance knows no bounds. He still
insists that I have an infinite population
at my disposal! Since I do not, then I cannot delete
genetic drift (via his own logic).

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

> BOH:-
> All of them are references.  Try reading them - that's why I posated
> them.  Nature, at least, should be available from a decent library.

JE:-
Dr O'Hara, is a typical Post Modern barbarian.
He is a mathematician but not a biologist. He
has no conception as to the critical difference
between a Popperian point of refutation and just
a point of non verification. It will never be
possible to explain to him that a point of
non verification does not refute a proposition,
yet that is all that can be done to test "drift
as evolution without selection". If he disagrees
then all he has to do is provide just one point
of refutation for "drift as evolution without
selection". Dr O'Hara will not provide this missing
point of refutation simply because non exist.
His view of evolution remains ubiquitous.
The view "drift as evolution without selection"
is an iron man theory that provides zero points
of refutation, i.e. it just constitutes yet another
barbarian dictate put about in the name of "science".

My 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 10/1/04 5:29:37 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)