Text 277, 206 rader
Skriven 2004-10-02 06:07:00 av John Edser (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Testing Evolution Via
=================================




"Anon." <bob.ohara@NOSPAM.helsinki.fi>:

>> >>>>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).

> BOH:-
> No, you have no variation.


JE:-
Where did Dr O'Hara obtain his PhD? Please
tell us so students can avoid this school!

It is childish nonsense for Dr O'Hara to suggest
that I have deleted all variation within my proposed
experiment. I repeat, I have not and _cannot_
delete ANY random processes such as gene freq.
changes via genetic drift or mutation that
continue to provide heritable variation! How many
times do I have to repeat such a basic fact?

Can Dr O'Hara follow a simple argument? I am only
deleting, for a _significant_ period of time,
all Darwinian natural selection via the discussed
experimental procedure. I am _not_ (repeat NOT),
deleting any random processes within a natural
population because such an event remains an utter
IMPOSSIBILITY. The aim is to test to refutation my
assertion of absolute Darwinian fitness. Gene freq. changes
via genetic drift that are only dictated to be evolution
by just a gene centric definition and CANNOT be tested to,
refutation. This is because they are defined random processes
that cannot be removed via any experimental procedure.
All that can be done is to test them to non verification
which is _never_ definitive.

>snip embarrassing nonsense<


> BOH:-
> I would suggest you try and demonstrate how your experiment maintains
> drift, as thus far you have ignored that part of my argument, and it's
> the main point I was trying to make: that your experiment deletes any
> between family variation in survival, and hence deletes both drift and
> selection (unless there is within family variation, in which case you
> have both selection and drift, so that you end up not controlling either).

JE:-
Clearly Dr O'Hara does not have a clue about what
this experiment is actually about: the difference
between a random and non random processes. Drift cannot
be eliminated as random temporal variation, neither
can random mutation or any other random process
via the outlined experimental procedure! Indeed, using
a fecund species like fruit fly's, artificial founder effects
on each parental population could be used to _magnify_ genetic
drift while still maintaining zero Darwinian natural
selection (raising to fertile adulthood the same
number of young) within an _expanding_ experimental
population.



> <snip>
> >>
> >>>________________________________________
> >>>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.

> BOH:-
> No, I am a biologist.  I have a bachelor's degree in genetics and
> statistics, a Ph.D. in plant epidemiology and a docentship in
> quantitative ecology.

JE:-
I REPEAT: not a single test to _refutation_
of drift causing evolution _without_ selection
exists within any of the references Dr O'Hara
has provided.

None of Dr O'Hara's responses demonstrate any
ability to understand the simple biological
experiment that I have proposed. More worrying than
that, these responses indicate no ability to be able
to discriminate between a random and a non random
process. How can anybody claim to have a PhD in
genetics and statistics and not understand
that defined _random processes_ such as genetic
drift and mutation _cannot_ be deleted from
any natural population using any
experimental technique?

The Post modern dictum is: "everything is
relative". Dr O'Hara and Dr Hoelzer have
both agreed that the common usage of
"gene freq. changes" within population
genetics constitutes a "misuse" because
the word "frequency" should be replaced in
EVERY case by the word "proportion". This
means that everything IS ONLY RELATIVE within
population genetics, i.e. population genetics
represents a classic mis-application of Post
Modernism to the science of biology.
__________________________________________
Clearly, this is why Hamilton's rule
cannot measure any difference between a
donation and an investment. If all you only claim
to be able to measure only constitutes a  relative
comparison then such differences must always remain
above your ability to measure!
__________________________________________

Worse than anything else, Dr Hoelzer still
maintains that the critical process of Popperian
refutation can be validly thrown out while
maintaining a rational evolutionary "science". He
is "painfully" aware that "creation science"
is now being taught in USA schools. However,
he refuses to even reply to my charge that only
because the Popperian process of refutation
has been thrown out can creation science be taught
as a science! The production of iron man theories
of nature are NOT scientific. Yet, evolution
by genetic drift acting alone without selection
is just such an iron man theory. It appears that
expediency rules in 2004. The cost? Chaos
(at public expense... of course...)

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 10/2/04 6:07:25 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)