Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- From: "Walter ReMine" <science@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 12:40:40 -0400 (EDT)
Joe Felsenstein wrote:
> ReMine has been told many times that my calculation of
> cost is not the reproductive excess required to allow
> substitution (William Morse, you are wrong about that).
Notice Felsenstein's focus on his *definition* of cost. His definition
of cost is useless at best (and that is being kind). It is a fountain
of confusion and error. His focus on his peculiar, confused,
error-prone definition of cost is one of his many evasions, which is
why he focuses on it now.
Now set aside his definition of cost, and Felsenstein still purveys
confusion and error. Because the deeper issue is the concept of
reproductive excess, and he cannot evade it by diverting to his
peculiar definition of cost. Notice that my following argument does not
even mention cost.
Felsenstein continually avoids the simplest scenarios -- instead, he
continually interjects complications that create confusion for
establishing his (false) notion that substitutions do not require
reproductive excess. His mix of confusion factors vary from time to
time, but they include:
(1) diploidy,
(2) non-constant population size,
(3) neutral substitutions,
(4) sexual reproduction (recombination),
(5) extinction,
(6) evasive definitions; and
(7) alleles that 'increase' directly by mutation
(rather than increasing through reproductive means).
By mixing these confusion factors in various combinations, Felsenstein
creates confusion to throw you off.
Here is the fundamental principle: If a scenario claims an allele
increases in number of copies (through reproductive means), then
reproductive excess is required. Absolutely. Positively. No exceptions.
Felsenstein tries to make a big fat exception for beneficial
substitutions. He is wrong.
Again, notice my above argument made no mention of "cost". Felsenstein
is wrong, regardless of his definition of cost.
William Morse interprets Felsenstein the same way I and most people do.
That is, William Morse see Felsensteins as arguing that substitutions
do NOT require reproductive excess (regardless of Felsenstein's
definition of cost).
William Morse wrote (May 25, 1:41 am):
> Your response misses the point of ... Joe
> Felsenstein's arguments. .... Dr. Felsenstein ...
> is positing a model to show that even though
> we know there will be excess reproduction,
> there is no mathematical requirement for excess
> reproduction in order for substitution of alleles
> to occur.
[NOTE: William Morse's post does not even mention "cost" or
Felsenstein's definition of it. The focus is entirely on Felsenstein's
non-requirement for reproductive excess.]
Felsenstein wrote:
> And yes, when [ReMine] comes to apply all this
> supposedly clarified concept to the human lineage,
> he will mysteriously fail to allow that lineage to
> have recombination. Just wait and see. He has done
> this before.
That is false. My clarified cost concept can be applied to any model of
any evolutionary scenario, including those with recombination.
On the other hand, Felsenstein uses recombination as one of his many
confusion factors (for supporting his false conclusion that
substitutions do not require reproductive excess). That is why
recombination and other complications should be avoided in discussions
with Felsenstein. So long as his false notion prevails, (and so long as
evolutionists allow it to thrive) there is no point in advancing to
complicated scenarios.
-- Walter ReMine
Haldane's Dilemma
http://www1.minn.net/~science/Haldane.htm
P.S. Felsenstein is not being deliberately deceptive. However, I will
not allow his complaints to stop me from explicitly pointing out his
confusions and errors.
.
- References:
- Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- From: John Edser
- Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- Prev by Date: Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- 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
|
