Text 318, 182 rader
Skriven 2004-10-05 06:29:00 av John Edser (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Testing Evolution Via
=================================
> > > > JE:-
> > > > The proposition that has to be able to be tested
> > > > to refutation is _very_ explicit: Can the process
> > > > of random sampling error cause evolution entirely
> > > > on its own without selection where evolution is
> > > > defined as ANY gene freq. change in a deme?
> > > > The short answer is that such a proposition
> > > > CANNOT be tested to _refutation_ it can only be
> > > > tested to _non_ verification. This means that
> > > > all that can be achieved is the elimination
> > > > of selection for a significant period of time,
> > > > in the experimental way that I have described.
> > > > Drift cannot be eliminated unless the experimenters
> > > > have an infinite population at their disposal
> > > > (which of course they do not). A random gene
> > > > freq. change due to random drift must
> > > > always exists and cannot _cannot_ be eliminated.
> > > > This being the case, all that can be done is
> > > > provide an expanding population that is only
> > > > subject to random processes (drift mutation
> > > > etc). Of course, this experimental population
> > > > will always produce a gene freq. change and thus,
> > > > according to the definition "evolution".
> > > TT:-
> > > So you (finally!) admit that sampling errors cause
> > > evolution - as it is conventionally defined.
> > JE:-
> > I don't seem to be getting through...
> > I have never denied that the conventional
> > definition can cause "evolution" as it defined it.
> > What I have repeatedly stated is that such an
> > definition only represents an "iron man" theory.
> > If you claim that just the random process of sampling
> > error can cause evolution without the non random
> > process of selection then such a definition of
> > evolution becomes _irrefutable_. This means,
> > no matter what you do, you cannot refute the
> > proposition.
> TT:-
> Definitions *are* irrefutable - since they are definitions.
> It is scientific theories that are testable.
JE:-
Definitions have to be one part of such a scientific
theory, i.e. the definitions must be able to be refuted
within the context of the theory, of which a definition
only constitutes one part. If that definition constitutes
a maximand for that theory then that definition provides
a point of refutation for that theory as well as
one point of unique verification). I have defined
such a maximand to be tested within the proposed experiment.
Darwinian fitness (the _total_ number of fertile forms
raised to adulthood by one parent within one population)
must always be selected to be maximised by each and every
Darwinian selectee because it constitutes a defined fitness
maximand that was always implicit within Darwin's writings.
I do not claim to have invented this maximand but I do
claim to have properly identified it. The point is
such a maximand cannot be selected to be lowered as
Hamilton et al argues that it can be. If it can be
then Darwinian fitness (exactly as I have defined
it) stands refuted. This is why I have spent time and
effort identifying Hamilton's error: not being able to
distinguish between c as a donation and c as a mutualised
investment because the total fitness of the actor is
not represented within the rule as a general term.
My experiment is designed to test a proposition of
what a fitness maximand is within a Darwinian science of
biology. It follows logically, if the Darwinian fitness of
each selectee can be artificially maintained to be exactly the
same within one experimental population for a significant
period of time then all Darwinian selection must be halted.
If it is not, then the proposition stands refuted. A side
product of this experiment is its ability to test the
"drift as evolution without selection" concept but only to
non verification. Because such a proposition allows just
a random process to cause evolution _on its own_ it cannot
be refuted. Random processes cannot be excised from
any experimental population. This is why random processes are
not put forward as causative _in their own right_ to any scientific
process. Gene centric Neo Darwinism is unique is providing
this type of misuse within the sciences.
> TT:-
> Evolution as a theory has historically consisted mainly of
> the proposition that natural forces are responsible for the
> origin and nature of living organisms - and that no designer
> or creator was involved.
>
> In particular, Darwin invoked natural selection acting on chance
> genetic variation in a population as one of the primary mechanisms
> responsible for generating all living forms.
>
> The *theory* of evolution is *NOT* the hypothesis that gene frequency
> changes occur in populations.
JE:-
Therefore, the definition of evolution as
any gene freq. change in a deme is an INCORRECT
measure of evolution, i.e. it does not represent
a result of testable evolutionary THEORY.
>snip<
> > > TT:-
> > > All that was ever claimed for the randomness of mutations
> > > is that they are random with respect to what is beneficial.
> > > They are not "totally" random. Some parts of the genome
> > > are more subject to mutation than others - for example.
> > JE:-
> > All of statistics exists to define when a
> > pattern is random or non random. Either a
> > pattern is defined to be random or non random.
> > It cannot be claimed that the same pattern
> > is random "with respect to what is beneficial"
> > but somehow non random with respect to what
> > is harmful!
> TT:-
> That's not the claim.
JE:-
As far as I understood it this was the
implied claim. Please rewrite to mean what
you intended.
> TT:-
> Mutations that affect fitness are a subset of all mutations.
> It is quite possible for all mutations that arise to consist of a
> non-random set - but for there to be no systematic bias favouring
> beneficial mutations in that set.
> In other words, if you randomly pick a mutation from the set of possible
> mutations at any time, it is not especially likely to be beneficial.
> Mutations are widely believed to be undirected with respect to fitness.
JE:-
Either the mutations that arise are defined to be
caused by a random process or a non random process
no matter if the mutations are harmful, harmless or
helpful. Since they are defined to be caused by just a
random process, "evolution via mutation without selection"
becomes _impossible_ because all patterns from
random processes only constitute random patterns.
Entirely random variation cannot constitute evolution
without selection because it is directionless without
a non random process such as selection.
The early mutationist ideas of Muller falsely claimed
that evolution can be produced by mutation without
selection. The "drift as evolution without selection"
concept is just a rehash of the same argument replacing
the random process of mutation with the random process
of genetic drift.
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 10/5/04 6:29:12 AM
* Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)
|