Re: McGinn's disproof of Hardy-Weinberg
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 01/03/05
- Next message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: What is R (relatedness) Suppose to Represent in"
- Previous message: Jim McGinn: "Re: Human Evolution is Categorically Distinct"
- Maybe in reply to: Anon.: "Re: McGinn's disproof of Hardy-Weinberg"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: McGinn's disproof of Hardy-Weinberg"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 04:22:19 +0000 (UTC)
"Anon." <bob.ohara@NOSPAM.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> > Agreed; problems in biology cannot possibly be addressed with the
> > quantitative rigor that is found in physics.
>snip<
JE:-
Incorrect. The total Darwinian fitness
of a Darwinian selectee can "be addressed with the
quantitative rigor that is found in physics."
What remains missing is an exact measure of its
heritability. This does NOT mean Darwinian
theory cannot be tested to refutation. It
can. I have outlined an experiment that can
do so by halting all selection within a
natural population. Population genetics models of
independent gene fitnesses e.g. Hamilton's, cannot
replace total Darwinian fitness within any science
of biology.
> BOH:-
>snip<
> Indeed, and he[Popper] states several times that probabilistic statements
are
> not falsifiable. From this he concludes that they are not scientific,
> but metaphysical.
JE:-
What Popper is suggesting is that mathematical models
are not theories in their own right and mathematics
is not a refutable science. However you will never convince
most mathematicians of such basic facts of life because of
their high levels of arrogance.
The Hardy-Weinberg law is just a simple binomial expansion
of two alleles at one locus allowing an exact quantitative
prediction of each alleles freq. over n generations when
zero selection is supposed to be operating. It represents
a zero state for selection where all genetic epistasis has
been deleted. HW forms the basis of all population genetics
equations. Within these models the term S can be incorporated
to make exact gene freq. predictions of selected alleles. Two
MAJOR points:-
1) No zero state for selection exists in NATURE.
However it can be produced within a natural population
via an artificial experiment. I have outlined this experiment
which can halt all natural selection within one experimental
population allowing total Darwinian fitness to be tested
to refutation. Only an enforced equal total Darwinian fitness can
halt all selection and thus all evolution within a natural population.
NO OTHER FITNESS MEASURE CAN DO SO.
2) Epistasis is not deleted within NATURE. Indeed
Haldane's Dilemma only proved one thing: Fishers
dictum that only non epistatic traits are heritable
now stands refuted.
I) C. H.. Waddington incorporated a new general term "developed
in x" within the HW based binomial expansion to incorporate
a MINIMAL concept of epistasis within population genetics equations.
Prof. Felsenstein (who incredibly was a student of Waddington)
can even provide the reference. However Felsenstein et al simply ignored
their own teacher, to this very day.
HW provides a blank sheet like zero degrees Kelvin
does for physics. If zero degrees Kelvin could be achieved
then physics as we know it would stand refuted because
100% of all energy cannot be removed form anywhere within
the universe. Thus the extrapolation of reality to zero
degrees Kelvin is NOT a reality it is just an OVER SIMPLIFIED
MODEL of reality. Only in this over simplification can zero degrees
Kelvin be achieved. The only valid use such a model has is
to help test _refutable_ theories of reality where zero degrees
Kelvin stands as a point of refutation. It would be absurd for a
non refutable theory that requires zero degrees Kelvin to contest
and win against known refutable physics. Yet, this is exactly
what has happened within biology. Non refutable oversimplified
models that describe states of biology that cannot even
exist within nature have been allowed to compete and win
against the refutable theory they were oversimplified from
within a so called science of biology. Models can be used or misused.
Gene centric Neo Darwinism misuses them but remains recalcitrant
to this ongoing misuse caused by astounding levels of arrogance.
I am still waiting for Dr O'Hara to explain his accusation
that in the experiment I outlined to halt all selection
within a natural population that I (by some alchemy) had
deleted all random processes within it. Such a statement
from somebody who purports to be a professional in the
field is just astounding. It is IMPOSSIBLE for anybody
to delete any random processes within a natural population
but they can be assumed to be deleted withih just a simplified
model. Is it possible that Dr O'Hara cannot tell the
difference?
> BOH:-
> Fortunately, philosophers have moved on from those times, even if this
> hasn't been noticed by a lot of people who try to discuss the philosophy
> of science.
JE:-
Refutability remains a BASIC of any rational argument.
Science is rational but mathematics is not. Godel proved
it. Once again the basic arrogance found almost universally
in the mathematics psyche remains a hopeless stumbling block.
Dr O'Hara et al have simply "moved on" back to past
witch hunting practices where non verification replaces
refutation so that "anything goes". It is called
Post Modernism where EVERYTHING is supposed to
be relative but nobody can tell you what EVERYTHING
is supposed to be relative to. Dear oh dear....
Happy New Year,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: What is R (relatedness) Suppose to Represent in"
- Previous message: Jim McGinn: "Re: Human Evolution is Categorically Distinct"
- Maybe in reply to: Anon.: "Re: McGinn's disproof of Hardy-Weinberg"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: McGinn's disproof of Hardy-Weinberg"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
