Text 455, 155 rader
Skriven 2004-10-21 09:48:00 av John Edser (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Claims Of Abuse
===========================




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

> >>>JE:-
> >>>Population genetics is entirely Post
> >>>Modern in its perspective and has
> >>>been misused in an ongoing way to
> >>>reduce evolutionary theory to just
> >>>an "iron man" theory (an irrefutable
> >>>theory of nature). Dr O'Hara
> >>>appears to wish to attempt to
> >>>enter into such a discussion.
> >>>However when the hard questions
> >>>are asked he just snips them
> >>>and pretends nothing has happened.

> >>BOH:-
> >>Dr. O'Hara has given up, because it has become clear that John is more
> >>interested in abuse and insult than in trying to understand the logical
> >>and factual counter-arguments to his claims.  IIRC, this is the same
> >>reason Joe Felsenstein gave up.

> > JE:-
> > Dr O'Hara claimed (amazingly) that in my proposed
> > experiment to test a proposed Darwinian maximand
> > of fitness to refutation (which I have always
> > claimed remains implicit within Darwin's writings)
> > that I had deleted all variation.
> > Such an event is just an impossibility. You
> > cannot delete random processes such as
> > random sampling error or random mutation
> > from any natural population. Because Dr
> > O'Hara's error was so basic I questioned
> > his claim, that he has a PhD in an evolutionary
> > theory related field. Apparently this constitutes
> > abuse.

> BOH:-
> Just to set the record straight on what I feel constitutes abuse, it
> does include questioning my professional competence,

JE:-
Are you suggesting that sbe readers should
just take your word for it when you claim to
have a BSc in statistics and a PhD in quantitative
biology?


>BOH:-
>..for example:
> "How can anybody who has a BSc in statistics and
> a PhD in quantitative biology not know that random
> processes ... _cannot_ be eliminated from
> a natural population? Has Dr O'Hara been misusing models
> for so long that he cannot discriminate between testable
> reality and just his oversimplified "quantitative
> biology" models?"
> (from the 5th of October)

JE:-
Well excuse me! Dr O'Hara has
yet again failed to reply to
the argument I presented above
only preferring to focus on
the colourful way it was
presented.

__________________________________________
Will Dr O'Hara please explain how it
is possible for me to delete all
variation when random processes
cannot be eliminated from any natural
population (but they can be eliminated
from oversimplified models).
__________________________________________

> BOH:-
> Some other choice quotes (from 2nd October, or earlier in the same
> thread), which I also take to be abusive:
> "Dr O'Hara's reply seems to be completely confused. "

JE:-
How can anybody construe that the word
"confused" constitutes abuse?

> BOH:-
> "Dr O'Hara's protest that: "It was a statement, or a recommendation"
> remains absurd via his own logic: ..."

JE:-
Again "absurd" just means a self contradiction and
is not a term of abuse it is a term of correction,

> BOH:-
> "Dr O'Hara's arrogance knows no bounds. "

JE:-
This was in response to your continual evasion
via your ongoing snipping of both questions and
answers.

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

JE:-
Again I put it to you that the fact you argued
that random process can be deleted within a
natural population brings into doubt your
claims re: your qualifications.

> BOH:-
> "Can Dr O'Hara follow a simple argument? "
> "Clearly Dr O'Hara does not have a clue about what this experiment is
> actually about: ..."
> "None of Dr O'Hara's responses demonstrate any ability to understand the
> simple biological experiment that I have proposed. "

JE:-
All of the above were appropriate given
your amazing comment that I had deleted all variation.
You failed entirely to grasp what this experiment
is all about.

> BOH:-
> Now, there are substansive scientific points on which John and I
> disagree, and it may well be that John is correct on some points.  But
> if we are going to discuss evolutionary biology, then please focus on
> the issues at stake, and not get into insults and name-calling.

JE:-
Please explain how anybody can delete all
variation from any natural population.

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 10/21/04 9:48:54 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)