Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- From: Guy Hoelzer <hoelzer@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 20:05:52 -0400 (EDT)
in article d6lpc0$137h$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Walter ReMine at
science@xxxxxxxx wrote on 5/20/05 3:46 PM:
> Guy Hoelzer wrote:
>> I admit to "playing dumb" in a sense, because I have
>> no interest in pursuing the question of confusion
>> over reproductive excess in the literature. ....
>> Unfortunately, you have not been very forthcoming in
>> answering my direct questions.
>
> You have been "playing dumb" and bluffing. And I am calling your bluff.
I have not bluffed in any sense of the word.
> You are not forthcoming in pursuing answers to your OWN questions,
> otherwise you would look in the existing cost literature. If you cannot
> find ready answers to your questions there, then my thesis is
> established.
Because the terms you are using have been used to mean a variety of things
in the literature, contributing to the confusion I have acknowledged in
several posts, it is incumbent on YOU to be clear about the definitions YOU
are using. You are not accomplishing anything if you choose to be ambiguous
about YOUR definitions.
> Warrens Ewens and James Crow acknowledge my paper and cost concept are
> CORRECT.
I have not seen their arguments (or were they just assertions?), so I cannot
comment on their reasoning. On the other hand, I disagree with their
conclusions based on my understanding of these terms. I would be happy to
debate them on this issue, as well. Then we might be able to engage the
debate, instead of avoiding it to whine about the weaknesses of past
arguments.
> However, they suppressed it from publication (in favor of the
> prevailing confusion), on the grounds that my paper is not needed. So
> if you cannot find answers to your own questions in the literature,
> then this strongly suggests that Ewens and Crow gave an illegitimate
> reason to reject a correct paper.
We have all had papers rejected for publication in particular journals for
bad reasons, but we move on. You could have submitted your paper to other
journals, but you shouldn't try to use references to private MS reviews as
cornerstones of your argument.
> I am calling your bluff. I challenge you to find answers to your own
> questions in the evolutionists' cost literature.
I AM NOT BLUFFING. I am not sitting here knowing the true definitions of
terms like "reproductive excess" and waiting for you to get them wrong so I
can put you down. I have pointed out repeatedly that I am aware of the
confusion over this issue in the literature, so there is not a coherent
answer for me there. I want to know the definition YOU are employing so
that I can evaluate the logic of YOUR claims. You won't answer my few,
straightforward questions, or deal with the logic of my cellular
reproduction context; instead you attack me by calling me a bluffer. This
suggests to me that you have no logical argument underpinning your claims,
and that you are trying to keep me from looking there (like the Wizard of OZ
behind the curtain).
Guy Hoelzer
.
- References:
- Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- From: Walter ReMine
- Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- Prev by Date: Re: First Cell Wall
- Next by Date: Re: What IF there was a heat cycle such that...
- Previous by thread: Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- Next by thread: Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
