Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess

Perplexed in Peoria (Jun 12, 2:23 am):

> Walter ReMine wrote:
>> I presume you're referring to Felsenstein's other
>> thread, and his highly artificial "model" where neutral
>> mutations *occur*. In what conceivable sense might a
>> mutation be called a "substitution"? That is your word
>> here, not Felsenstein's.
>
> Well, what do you know? Here I was all ready to
> deny you any credit for answering questions in
> this posting. But you HAVE answered one - even
> if indirectly. ReMine does NOT include mutation
> in "substitution by reproductive means". Get that,
> Joe?

You're jumping to conclusions. The issue here is not what I think. The
issue here, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is what EVOLUTIONISTS
think? What are evolutionists going to do about their OWN
cost-confusions? Are they going to make *reasonable* attempts to
clarify their own questions? Or, are they going to change the subject,
but blaming their own confusions onto me, as though I'm responsible for
it? At the moment, you are tettering into the latter category. So back
up, and make a *reasonable* attempt to understand your own notion of
"substitution" -- In what conceivable sense is a mutation a
"substitution"? You don't need me to answer that for you.

Why do I stress this point? Because I am deeply concerned about the
unhealthy scientific environment surrounding Haldane's Dilemma. Until
many evolutionists get healthy about ACTUALLY, SINCERELY, PURSUING the
scientific truth and eliminating the confusion, there is little point
in discussing anything else.

> ... that means that ReMine must construe
> "reproductive excess" as an attribute of haplotypes.

Well, ah, not exactly. You're being needlessly fancy. Reproductive
excess is a very simple concept. Keep it simple. It's not really about
genetics, but even simpler than that. You don't need the notion of
"haplotypes" in order to understand reproductive excess. Rather, you
need a simpler (and only slightly more abstract) notion of reproductive
excess.

> Do I have this right, Walter?

Close enough for now.

> ... I find that I can concur with your often
> repeated refrain of "ALWAYS. NO EXCEPTIONS".

Thanks!

> Though I am sorely tempted to continue with one
> of Jim McGinn's more annoying questions:
> "So, what is your point?"

When someone suggests: (1) substitutions do NOT require reproductive
excess; or (2) substitutions require reproductive excess only in a
deteriorating environment; or (3) environmental deterioration is what
CAUSES substitutions to require reproductive excess, then you are now
in a position to set them straight. The point is: Will you?

-- Walter ReMine
Haldane's Dilemma
http://www1.minn.net/~science/Haldane.htm


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
    ... >> reproductive excess is required. ... >> given cellular organism lives forever. ... There is no increase in number of copies of any alleles. ... -- Walter ReMine ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The cost of substitution
    ... Walter ReMine wrote: ... the requirement for reproductive excess ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
    ... substitutions do NOT require reproductive ... > deteriorating environment; or environmental deterioration is what ... > CAUSES substitutions to require reproductive excess, ... I will set them straight. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
    ... > 2) Substitutions commonly occur with "zero" reproductive excess. ... Why do evolutionists allow such fundamental confusions ... Why do evolutionists allow the confusion to thrive? ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
    ... Joe Felsenstein continues to promote falsehoods that: ... Substitutions commonly occur with "zero" reproductive excess. ... When I draw attention to those errors, Felsenstein merely adds more ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)