Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess

In article <d7krti$2cte$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Walter ReMine <science@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Joe Felsenstein wrote:
>> In that 1971 model I was investigating whether
>> Haldane's cost [of substitution] could be thought
>> of as a cost which, if too large, led to extinction.
>> It turned out that it could, and the formulas were
>> very close to Haldane's, if one assumed that the
>> substitutions were responses to environmental
>> deteriorations, and the cost was calculated as the
>> reproductive excess needed to prevent extinction.
>
>I cite that as one example (of many) where Felsenstein's cost concept,
>and Haldane's cost concept, (and Haldane's Dilemma) are intertwined.
>Felsenstein and his followers have positioned Felsenstein's notion of
>"zero cost" as a solution to Haldane's Dilemma. Felsenstein is wrong.
>
>But more importantly, evolutionists allow Felsenstein's error to
>thrive. They do not resolve it.

Somehow people tolerate ReMine endlessly repeating himself.

Haldane put forward an algebraic derivation of a "cost of natural selection",
and people were not clear about whether this did or did not reflect
some Dilemma. I tried to make an argument that dealt with particular
cases where there were ongoing environmental deteriorations. Yes, a cost
could be seen clearly there: it was the reproductive excess necessary to
avoid extinction. I think this clarifies when the "cost" is and is not
a problem for the survival of the population.

While he endlessly asserts that I was wrong, ReMine has utterly failed to point
out a single algebraic or logical error in that argument. Not one. Absolutely.
Positively. No exceptions.

That sort of misrepresentation of where errors are in the literature
is one of the chief reasons for reviewers rejecting a paper when it does that.

--
Joe Felsenstein joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Department of Genome Sciences and Department of Biology,
University of Washington, Box 357730, Seattle, WA 98195-7730 USA

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Reproductive Excess: Is Required
    ... >Indeed the cost concept has been garbled, ... When Felsenstein claims the cost of substitution is ... risk of extinction -- having twice as many of them will be better. ... For neutral mutations no reproductive excess is needed to prevent extinction. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The cost of substitution
    ... Let's be clear what Felsenstein is up to. ... Or is the cost ... Felsenstein's notion is erroneous -- and Ewens and Crow acknowledge my ... "isn't a Dilemma" and therefore resolving the matter "isn't a high ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
    ... > Notice Felsenstein's focus on his *definition* of cost. ... > of confusion and error. ... > Now set aside his definition of cost, and Felsenstein still purveys ... > reproductive excess, and he cannot evade it by diverting to his ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
    ... Notice Felsenstein's focus on his *definition* of cost. ... Now set aside his definition of cost, and Felsenstein still purveys ... reproductive excess, and he cannot evade it by diverting to his ... establishing his notion that substitutions do not require ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The cost of substitution
    ... > One person, Joe Felsenstein, acknowledges the cost literature is ... I am sure that sbe readers would ... substation is an important issue for evolutionary theory. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)