Text 562, 77 rader
Skriven 2004-10-28 16:46:00 av John Edser (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Can evolution go back
=================================




William Morse <wdmorse@twcny.rr.com>
> References: <cllqu0$1tvm$1@darwin.ediacara.org> 
> Convergence is convincing evidence that a trait is under selective 
> pressure. But note that Larry did not say that drift causes all of 
> evolution, only a large part of evolution. I disagree with him over just 
> how much is a "large part",...

JE:-
It is not correct to argue that somehow it is possible
to cut up evolutionary theory such that 0.5 parts of 
selection + 0.25 part of drift 0.25 other sources
of heritable  variation = 1 total unit of evolution!
You cannot separate random variation from non random
selection in any simple way to provide a testable theory of 
nature which just adds them up. These events are combined
in a _non_ additive, complex way. All you can do is suppose 
that one provides random variation for the other, which
is exactly what Darwinian theory has always supposed. 

If, somehow, you could stop all heritable random variation
(which in nature you cannot but you can 
heuristically, within just an over simplified model of a 
valid theory nature) then you could stop all evolution
even while selection remains in operation. In _reality_, 
heritable variation produced by random process
such as drift and mutation _cannot_ be deleted from
any natural population, ever, no exceptions so
no experiment of the above is ever possible.

It can easily be shown that not all random variation
is produced by just random sampling error. Mutation is 
another random process that provide heritable variation. Thus it
is possible to do a simple thought experiment (which is ONLY
a model) which shows that evolution could proceed
without any random sampling error, i.e. if you could entirely 
dispense with drift within a model but evolution still proceeds
via just mutation and selection. However it is possible to provide
an EXPERIMENT AND NOT JUST A MODEL to prove that what biologists 
have always intuitively termed evolution (not what Neo Darwinists
define it to be within common misused models) _cannot_ proceed 
using only random processes without selection. I have
outlined the experiment that is required to test this
to refutation. All of it is just simple commonsense.

I remain (like many others here) stunned and amazed at
incompetent Neo Darwinistic claims that seek to combine 
random variation with non random selection in just 
a simple additive way as some sort of valid theory of 
nature.  All these issues are easily resolved by testing
them against _nature_. What annoys me (and many others
here) more than anything else is consistent evasion
re: these tests displayed by most Neo Darwinists that 
post here. Refusing such questions only holds the scientific 
process in contempt.

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 10/28/04 4:46:08 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)