Re: What is R (relatedness) Suppose to Represent in
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 01/03/05
- Next message: Roberto: "Re: A New Species of Man? => Whom will we be the hoary ancestors ?"
- Previous message: deowll: "Re: Human Evolution is Categorically Distinct"
- Maybe in reply to: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: What is R (relatedness) Suppose to Represent in"
- Next in thread: ekurtz99_at_WhoKnowsWhere.com: "Re: What is R (relatedness) Suppose to Represent in"
- Reply: ekurtz99_at_WhoKnowsWhere.com: "Re: What is R (relatedness) Suppose to Represent in"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 04:22:20 +0000 (UTC)
Jim McGinn Wrote:
> > EK:-
> > It doesn't help that he
> > starts with an obviously flawed notion of ordinary fitness ("units of
> > fertile organisms produced").
> JMcG:-
> Yes, John lives in a world where semantics have power
> over and above physical processes.
JE:-
No, I live in the world of refutable theory.
Here, witch hunts are simply not allowed.
It appears Jim lives entirely within a
world of just one non refutable model of his
own making that he cannot articulate because
even he cannot understand it.
EK's proposition that "units of fertile organisms
produced" or more EXACTLY the total number of
fertile forms reproduced into one population by
each parent constitutes a "flawed" refutable
Darwinian fitness defies testable theory.
It is a vindictive statement based on prejudice.
I can provide a biological test that can
uniquely verify or refute this fitness proposition.
I am very happy to elaborate and have done so several
times. This experiment is the only one that
can halt all selection within a natural population
(not within just an oversimplified model).
It remains brain dead to allow genes trapped in
sterile bodies to have any fitness, at all.
These genes are all dependently selected within the
fertile body they came from and NOT within any
sterile body. Suggesting that genes within infertile
forms are selected for within these forms
makes about the same sense as EK's proffered
notion that because a rocket loses mass as
it's fuel is burnt that this somehow, proves that
mass within Newtonian mechanics is not constant.
EK is a competent mathematician who cannot reason.
Large numbers of them exist. They cause
havoc almost everywhere.
Happy New Year,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: Roberto: "Re: A New Species of Man? => Whom will we be the hoary ancestors ?"
- Previous message: deowll: "Re: Human Evolution is Categorically Distinct"
- Maybe in reply to: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: What is R (relatedness) Suppose to Represent in"
- Next in thread: ekurtz99_at_WhoKnowsWhere.com: "Re: What is R (relatedness) Suppose to Represent in"
- Reply: ekurtz99_at_WhoKnowsWhere.com: "Re: What is R (relatedness) Suppose to Represent in"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|