RE:: Lottery tickets

From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 02/20/05 

Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 01:15:35 -0500 (EST)

> JM:-
> Are winning lottery tickets different from lottery
> tickets that don't win in terms of their causative
> properties? Yes, No.

JE:-
I will answer this as honestly as I can.
If honestly has to be abrasive then so be it.

After lecturing Edser on the proper approach to
ask a question Menegay decides to use a direct
unambiguous and therefore necessarily confronting
approach similar to the approach Edser employs because
Menegay is now asking the question and not Edser.

To answer the question: It is a "when did you stop
beating your wife question" so the answer is
neither "yes" or "no". Since winning a lottery
is assumed to be the sole result of a random process
no testable (refutable) causation can be allocated
to a random process as the sole cause. This was
proven in the experiment I outlined to test evolution
by Darwinian selection (a non random process). The
experiment halts all evolution via Darwin's
non random process of selection by artificially
maintaining TDF (Total Darwinian Fitness) as
equal for a significant period of time for
all Darwinian selectees within one population.
Thus all changes that remain will be random.
The proposition that random events alone can
cause evolution without at least one non random
event such as selection can only be
tested to non verification because unlike
non random events, random events cannot be
excluded from any natural population (they
can be excluded from just a model of one).
Please note that O'Hara incorrectly concluded that
I had excluded all random events. The whole point
of this experiment it that they can be reduced
but they cannot be excluded.

> JM:-
> (Genes that are IBD differ from non-IBD genes in an
> odd way. They happen to **receive** more altruism
> under kin selection than do the non-IBD genes. Or,
> rather, they inhabit Dawkins vehicles that receive
> more altruism. Though they do nothing to "cause"
> this good luck.)

JE:-
McGinn and Felsenstein remain confused.
RELATEDNESS IBD is not the same as genes IBD.
Relatedness IBD = genes IBD * nonIBD, i.e.
the multiple of both probabilities, always,
no exceptions. The row between Felsenstein
and McGinn is just an argument based on a false
dichotomy. Reader's may not expect anything better
from McGinn but they should expect a lot better
from the only Professor of Evolutionary Theory
that posts here.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The root of all evil? - Dawkins Documentary
    ... selection not being a very common phenomenon, ... Dawkins himself refers to genes are 'selfish cooperators'. ... what the biochemical nature of life itself and how it might have begun. ... parasitical is one manner in which a meme can operate, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Towards The Logical Structure of Hamilton and Darwins Arguments.
    ... placed on any of the diagonals because the corners represent contradictions ... The two single level of selection propositions: ... All genes are selected at the organism level (all S are ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: In the news: Cornell finds natural selection in humans
    ... >>>one another at the DNA level shows strong evidence that natural selection has ... >>>humans but also between the humans and a chimpanzee, ... >>>genes that show some variability within humans or differences between humans ... >> allopatric speciation is the most likely type of speciation event. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Group selection in the breeding of super chickens
    ... Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF): the total number of just fertile forms ... Darwinian natural selection within one natural population is to ... Talking about competition between genes is a narrow, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Reviving group selection
    ... >> populations by sexual recombination. ... > No theoretical argument against group selection is based on within-group ... that produces new combinations of genes via sex. ... but it is very weak as a force for creating variation between groups. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
Loading