Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 23:33:58 -0400 (EDT)
> > WR:-
> > Joe Felsenstein continues to promote falsehoods that:
> > 1) Substitutions do not require reproductive excess.
> > 2) Substitutions commonly occur with "zero" reproductive excess.
> > 3) When reproductive excess is required,
> > it is "due to" a deteriorating environment.
> > 4) Beneficial substitutions "pay for" themselves.
> > Here is the fundamental principle: Whenever a scenario claims an
> > allele increases in number of copies (by reproductive means), then
> > reproductive excess is required. Absolutely. Positively. No
> > exceptions. Felsenstein is wrong.
> GH:-
> This statement is absolutely and positively false, unless Remine is
using
> some strange definition of "reproduction" that I cannot grasp.
JE:-
ReMine appears to me to be attempting to crystallize a very _basic_
point of reason that Neo Darwinists appear to always insist on deleting
from their population genetics heuristic exercises: TOTALS. Each total
of something becomes finite and complete and therefore represents an
absolute and thus refutable _assumption_ of nature. All refutable
theories are based on at least one unalterable total or constant of
something. Any testable evolutionary theory is based on total fitness
per selectee per population. Neo Darwinism remains non testable simply
because it only allows incomplete and thus forever ongoing non
definitive sub totals of fitness. Within Neo Darwinism fitness is never
defined in any objective way, i.e. either no selectee is defined or the
fitness allocated to it cannot be counted, or both.
My understanding is that ReMine correctly insists on the existence of a
total cost of substitution. Any total cost has to be paid
no-matter-what. However Felsenstein et al appears to only be insisting
on just a relative cost of substitution which may not have to be paid
because anything relative can validly turn out to be zero. It appears to
me that for Neo Darwinism "everything is relative" including the cost of
substitution, i.e. Neo Darwinism is entirely Post Modern. Also, Neo
Darwinistic payments are not made in the same currency as costs so that
rational accounting, even for just a relative cost of substitution, just
becomes an impossibility.
> GH:-
>snip<
> Consider cellular reproduction, which is the same as organismal
> reproduction
> for unicellular organisms. This is achieved through cell division
which
> results in two cells where there was previously only one, and an
increase
> in
> frequency for the alleles carried by the cell. If this is an example
of
> reproductive excess, then I would like to know how a cell can
reproduce
> without being "excessive."
JE:-
The term "excessive" is only a subjective term because it is never
defined by Neo Darwinists to be excessive to something concrete that is
clearly defined. The consistent usage of similar subjective terms is
just one of many essential "smoke and mirror" tools required of any 100%
relative proposition that wishes to remain 100% relative and non
testable.
In your example: the total cost of substitution is the total number of
cell divisions required to substitute one gene within one population of
these cells. This cost has to be paid no-matter-what. It does not matter
if the gene is neutral or the environment is beneficial/non beneficial.
OTOH Felsenstein et al appear to be employing the subjective term
"excess" on a 100% relative basis. They appear to be comparing the costs
with gains on just a moment by moment basis deleting costs if gains >
costs for any moment in time. It appears that gains > costs per moment
is what they mean by "excess".
IF the total cost of substitution within your example is not proposed to
be a classically group selective cost then it has to be shared between
independent selectees where it must provide a fitness gain per selectee
to be viable. In Darwinian terms this means the total cost of
substitution has to become mutualised to be selectable. Previously you
provided for me a very important reference which resolved the long
running issue as to how slime moulds may have evolved to allow a sizable
percentage of cells within a communalised slug to become sacrificed to
form a stalk which was required to hold the spores aloft. If you assume
that each fertile cell represents one Darwinian unit of selection that
is attempting to maximise the total number of fertile cells it
reproduces into one population (TDF) then this cost became explicable as
a mutualised investment but not as an altruistic donation. The cost of
the stalk provided a mean _increase_ in TDF such that cells that refused
to pay the premium only ended up without any stalk to allow them to be
dispersed so they suffered a lowered TDF compared to those that paid it.
My reason for bringing this up here is that it clearly demonstrates that
costs and their payments require TOTALS to make them explicit. ReMine
appears to me to be correctly suggesting that a total cost of
substitution must be made explicit, even within Neo Darwinistic
heuristic models. I have argued the same for Hamilton's Rule. Unless the
rule includes and does not simply delete the total fitness of the actor
it cannot discriminate between selfishness and altruism. In reality only
zero mutualism is actually included within Hamilton's Rule. The common
view that any negative c within the rule represents mutualism is
entirely incorrect. To prove this simply multiply the rule by -1. The
deletion of fitness totals, even within Neo Darwinistic heuristic
models, represents a grave error of reasoning.
> GH:-
> If this is an example of reproductive excess
> to
> Remine, then ALL reproduction is excessive in his view. I'm sure that
> most
> of us would agree that reproduction is necessary for biological
evolution,
> so Remine might not actually be arguing for anything other than
> conventional
> thinking, and the cost issue is all smoke and mirrors (at least as he
has
> posed the issue).
JE:-
No, as Post Modern Neo Darwinism "has posed the issue". ReMine and
others here such as myself are *NOT* the paid professionals. Our role is
to provide what appears to be missing but basic levels of scepticism to
popular Neo Darwinian models which (unfortunately as far as I am
concerned) entirely dominate evolutionary theory today. I claim the
majority of these models remain misused. The most important issue for
Neo Darwinism is to clear up once and for all, the critical difference
that does exist between model and theory.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Genehunting in phylogenetics
- Next by Date: Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- Previous by thread: Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- Next by thread: Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
