Text 476, 78 rader
Skriven 2004-10-22 21:42:00 av Michael Ragland (1:278/230)
Ärende: Dr. Tim Tyler?
======================



You are careless Mr. Edser. I've read about many doctors who are
incompetents but unfortunately bear the credentials. Where did you get
the idea Mr. Tim Tyler is a doctor and a doctor of what? It is not
indicated on his webpage and a google search turns up nothing.
I'm open to being informed of your knowledge Mr. Edser since there are
apparently some doctors on s.b.e. Dr. Hayes, Dr. Moran, Dr. Hoelzer, Dr.
Atmar, Dr. Felsenstein, etc. I'm mentioning this because other
readers/lurkers of s.b.e. may read your reference to Tim Tyler as a
doctor and believe it. If Tim Tyler is indeed a doctor let's see some
evidence of his education and professional accomplishments. 

Michael Ragland


Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote: 

TT:- 
Even without differential reproductive success, you can't avoid
evolution in practice - due to genetic drift. 

JE;- 
Such a proposition is totally irrefutable. Why do people argue that
irrefutability is a GOOD thing? Scientific method demands refutable
theories of nature otherwise science is reduced to just a witch hunt.
Genetic drift (the defined random process of sampling error) cannot be
defined as causing evolution in its own right, just temporal variation
otherwise the theory of of evolution becomes reduced to a rusting "iron
man" proposition that cannot be tested to refutation only to non
verification. The net result is that somebody ends up dictating what
evolution is forcing open the doors of science departments to other
dictating bigots allowing them to teach nonsense "creation science" to
hapless children. 

TT:- 
In fact, differential reproductive success will always decrease the
effective population size - and will thus increase the magnitude of the
effect of genetic drift on gene frequency changes. 

JE:- 
Dr Tyler has not defined what biological entity is being measured using
"reproductive success" so his argument lacks rigor. If you define these
entities as fertile forms (as Darwin implicitly did) then it is not true
to argue that "differential reproductive success will always decrease
the effective population size" of fertile forms. Each parent is selected
to maximise the total number of fertile forms it reproduces into one
population using Darwinism. This represents a testable to refutation
Darwinian fitness maximand. The prediction is that no fertile form can
be selected to reduce its own Darwinian maximand, i.e. no parent can be
selected to reduce the total number of fertile forms its reproduces into
one population. This being the case Darwinism always attempts to EXPAND
populations of fertile forms. This does NOT mean that all natural
population must expand. It means that the population of fertile forms
will always be maximised relative to the carrying capacity of the
environment. 

Regards, 
John Edser
Independent Researcher 
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia 
edser@tpg.com.au

"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value.
Bacteria do quite well with it."

Stephen Hawking
---
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 10/22/04 9:42:17 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)