Re: The cost of substitution
- From: "Walter ReMine" <science@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:59:21 -0400 (EDT)
Joe Felsenstein wrote:
> Let's be clear what ReMine is up to. ...
Let's be clear what Felsenstein is up to. Most of his post attempts to
divert the topic of this thread. The topic is simple: Is the cost of
substitution CLEAR in the evolutionary literature? Or is the cost
concept overwhelmed by confusion, contradiction, and error, as I claim.
> The cost of natural selection has been discussed in the
> late 1960's and early 1970's, and as I mentioned, and
> no real consensus was achieved. Different people in the
> field have different ideas about its meaning and
> relevance. Since none of [them] considered the cost
> concept to be a barrier to evolutionary explanations of
> phenomena, they never bothered to try to achieve any
> consensus.
Felsenstein acknowledges there was "no real consensus" on the "meaning
and relevance" of the cost of substitution. In reality, there was
confusion and contradiction about the "meaning and relevance" of the
cost of substitution, (that's what I've been saying for years) -- and
therefore the very basis for a solution is suspect. Felsenstein also
acknowledges that evolutionists "NEVER BOTHERED TO TRY TO ACHIEVE ANY
CONSENSUS." I could hardly have said it better myself.
Felsenstein's promotes the idea that beneficial mutations inherently
have zero cost of substitution. My paper explicitly shows that
Felsenstein's notion is erroneous -- and Ewens and Crow acknowledge my
paper is CORRECT. In other words, Ewens and Crow are contradicting
Felsenstein on this exceedingly fundamental point. Can anyone cite
where this matter is resolved in the literature?
> Indeed, in view of these papers, Ewens might well try to
> claim priority [over ReMine's paper]:
>
> Ewens, W. J. 1972. The substitutional load in a
> finite population. American Naturalist 106: 273-382.
> Ewens, W. J. 1973. Comment on Nei's letter on
> substitutional loads. American Naturalist 107: 462-463.
As seen even in the titles of those papers, Ewens was discussing
SUBSTITUTIONAL LOAD, which my paper explicitly identifies as an
unnecessary confusion factor -- and in his review, Ewens agreed
emphatically; adding that load theory is a "dead horse." My paper is
new.
>> If that's true, then where in the literature is
>> Felsenstein's notion of "zero cost" addressed and
>> resolved?
>
> As I just said, the whole concept of cost of natural
> selection has only been clarified by me in that 1971
> paper, and others did not continue the discussion
> until we all agreed, and so have not said whether
> they agree or disagree.
Felsenstein just acknowledged a key point. "Others did not continue
the discussion until we all agreed, and so HAVE NOT SAID WHETHER THEY
AGREE OR DISAGREE" with Felsenstein. That is accurate. Felsenstein's
erroneous notion of "zero cost" was never challenged in the literature.
But it *is* explicitly overturned in my paper, and Ewens and Crow
acknowledge my paper is correct. I am 'outing' Ewens and Crow on this
point -- they are contradicting Felsenstein -- and this contradiction
was never addressed, much less resolved, in the literature. My paper
is new and warranted. By rejecting my paper from publication, Ewens
and Crow are allowing Felsenstein's widespread error to continue.
>> We are faced with contradictions. Felsenstein's
>> notion exists unchallenged in the literature, and
>> prevails today even at sbe. Yet he is contradicted
>> by Crow and Ewens. Where in the literature is this
>> resolved?
>
> It isn't. It might be nice to resolve it some time.
Felsenstein acknowledges the matter "isn't resolved" in the literature.
>> Evolutionary geneticists are contradicting each other
>> on FUNDAMENTALS about the cost of substitution.
>> Is anyone willing to argue that the cost of substitution
>> is CLEAR in the literature?
>
> No, because it isn't clear (except in my paper).
> And it isn't a Dilemma, so resolving it isn't a
> high priority.
Felsenstein acknowledges the cost concept "isn't clear" in the
literature -- "EXCEPT IN" HIS PAPER, which is now contradicted by Ewens
and Crow. In other words, confusion reigns.
With his erroneous concept of "zero cost," Felsenstein believes cost
"isn't a Dilemma" and therefore resolving the matter "isn't a high
priority." That circular reasoning only continues his error.
(Note: Resolving the confusion in the literature seems to have zero
priority, or even a negative priority.)
The fundamental cost concept is now overwhelmed with confusion,
contradiction, and error -- which evolutionists are not pursuing, much
less resolving.
-- Walter ReMine
Haldane's Dilemma
http://www1.minn.net/~science/Haldane.htm
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The cost of substitution
- From: Joe Felsenstein
- Re: The cost of substitution
- References:
- The cost of substitution
- From: Walter ReMine
- The cost of substitution
- Prev by Date: Re: OOL X - The origin of the RNA world.
- Next by Date: Re: The cost of substitution
- Previous by thread: Re: The cost of substitution
- Next by thread: Re: The cost of substitution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
