Text 952, 135 rader
Skriven 2004-12-07 22:09:00 av John Edser (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: The "fuel" of evoluti
=================================




> > BOH:-
> > One could, of course, define the cut-off as the number of generations
> > between the one where the gene acts, and the last relative to be
> > affected by the gene's effect.
 
> JE:-
> Relatedness r=0 is only possible if
> the gene in question was not descended from the
> one common  ancestor. In all other cases r > 0
> only _approaches_ but never reaches, zero.
> Darwin implied a _testable_ to refutation "cut-off"
> point to measure a _finite_ fitness value: one
> generation of _fertile_ forms.

> [moderator's note: Not to be heretical and all, but
> who cares what Darwin "implied"? Let's not get stuck
> on Darwin as scripture, shall we? The important thing
> should be, what is correct? Darwin, for all his gifts,
> has nothing to do with that. - JAH]

JE:-
In reply to our esteemed moderator:-
I find it astonishing that today's
Neo Darwinists do not understand
Darwin's *THEORY*. They seem not to be
able to distinguish between the refutable
theory that Darwin provided for the
biological sciences and just the
principle of natural selection
(the selection of anything by default)

Here are the facts:-

1) Darwin never employed any fitness
concept as Herbert Spencer did but 
within Darwin's writings fitness is implied.
Darwin discusses the importance of raising 
young to adulthood. It is entirely obvious 
that infertile forms remain impotent _because_ 
they are infertile.  Even if you know nothing 
about genes (which was the case for Darwin) it 
remains very clear that infertile forms cannot 
validly constitute valid units of fitness within
his theory.

2) To turn Darwin's comment about raising young
to adulthood into a refutable _maximand_ fitness
all you have to do is suggest that the TOTAL
number of fertile forms raised to fertile 
adulthood by each parent has to be maximised.
This means that this exact fitness total cannot be 
selected to be reduced. If it can be then Darwin's
theory stands refuted. OTOH, Hamilton suggested
this total could be selected to be reduced
via selfish geneism. However Hamilton et al did
not provide any point of refutation for their
theory which purported to be able to refute 
Darwinism (which it could not).

3) Darwinism is not "scripture" BECAUSE it DOES
provide a point of refutation: total Darwinian
fitness per Darwinian selectee per population
cannot be selected to be reduced. If it is then
Darwin's theory stands refuted.

It is Neo Darwinism that has become today's 
"scripture" simply because:-

	(a) No refutable maximand fitness exists
	within it. The Darwinian maximand fitness
  	remains deleted (along with genetic epistasis)
	via the Neo Darwinian process of over simplification.

	(b) Without a finite total fitness concept Neo
	Darwinism becomes a pointless 100% RELATIVE
	measure of fitness that cannot be tested to refutation.

4) I have provide a simple biological experiment 
to test Total Darwinian Fitness to refutation.

5) At the gene centric level: Total Darwinian Fitness
per selectee, per population constitutes ONE genomic
epistatic fitness. Because gene fitness epistasis
remains deleted within Hamilton's Rule and within
gene centric Neo Darwinism in general, their continued 
fiction of an independent gene level of selection has 
invaded evolutionary theory like some sort of cancer. 
This invasion of refutable evolutionary theory by
what appears to be biologically ignorant mathematicians
who keep insisting that just their heuristic non
refutable independent gene level of selection can 
validly replace the refutable Darwinian fertile organism
level of selection remains absurd.

I repeat:

> Gene centric modelling simply deleted the word "fertile"
> ending up with only a heuristic infinite fitness
> measure. For over 50 years they have invalidly
> employed this heuristic to contest and win against
> Total Darwinian Fitness where only Darwin's
> implied maximand fitness can be tested to
> refutation. The only response from Neo Darwinists
> that post here to this argument is to throw out
> Popperian refutation, i.e. they simply shoot the
> umpire.
> 
> 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 12/7/04 10:09:02 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)