Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 01:44:11 -0400 (EDT)
"Malcolm" regniztar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
> > JE. Nothing I have written here is original IMO. It most certainly
isn't
> > unconventional.
> M:-
> One of your arguments was that, if we have a number of alleles that
> contribute to an atruistic trait, such that ABCD is altrusitic whilst
> abcd,
> aBCD and all the other contributions are non-altrusitic, then for the
> purposes of Hamilton's rule the behaviour will only spread if the
benefit
> is
> greater than r^4 times cost.
> (I know that there are other issues concerned with the units in which
b
> and
> c are measured, which I haven't taken on board fully just yet).
> Now I haven't heard this from anyone else.
JE:-
I put a similar argument to Felsenstein about 2 year ago within sbe as
what I regard is a valid *DARWINIAN* simplified (NOT OVERSIMPLIFIED)
proposition for the evolution of organism fitness altruism (commonly and
confusingly only termed "altruism" by gene centric Neo Darwinists) which
included a _minimum_ of gene fitness epistasis within Hamilton's rule
(Hamilton et al deleted all of it when r^e was oversimplified to r and
subsequently fixed to r). My understanding of Felsenstein's reply was
that this was only a preference and not a necessity. I entirely
disagreed but the issue of "preference" Vs "necessity" was never
resolved because Felsenstein ceased all communication on the subject. If
I remember correctly only Dr Guy Hoelzer (GH) was prepared to discuss
it. I strongly suggest you query Felsenstein on this point because he is
arguably the most senior poster here (he refuses all communication with
myself).
GH's resolution appeared to argue that all models are equally valid,
i.e. he appeared to agree with Felsenstein, i.e. deleting e was only a
matter of preference. I argued then and continue to argue today that
evolutionary theory cannot validly delete ALL gene fitness epistasis
otherwise such a grossly oversimplified model is misused whenever it is
applied to biology as it was in Hamilton's time and as is applied today.
This is because all gene fitnesses, without exception, remain
empirically epistatic. Unless Neo Darwinists can come up with at least
one _empirically based verification_ of a non epistatic fitness where
could only be measured as a documented trait with a _polygenetic
fitness_ (the fitness of one trait is the simple addition of the
_fitnesses_ of each gene that codes for it) then they cannot validly
delete e within r^e only minimally simplify and not oversimplify it to
e=2. The only response that I remember receiving was that since
polygenetic traits actually existed, e.g. human height, then polygenetic
fitnesses are a reasonable supposition. They are NOT and we are not
dealing with suppositions. Any polygenetic fitnesses allows a _non
empirically_ ,i.e. just a heuristic independent level of fitness to
exist (as argued by Dawkins et al) to contest and even win over the
single Darwinian fertile form level which remains the only empirically
based level that we have.
Nobody has proposed even a just duel level of selection theory so no
duel selection model can exist because all models are
simplifications/oversimplifications of theory. Just saying that two
independent levels of selection exist in nature does not constitute a
theory of same. I pointed out to Felsenstein that if just one case of
organism fitness altruism was ever empirically verified then Darwinian
theory would stand refuted. He refused to comment. Felsenstein remains
on record as saying he would never discuss cause and effect within
evolutionary theory so this is what you have to expect.
> M:-
> In fact it would be nice if
> undergraduates challenged lecturers with similar objections more often
at
> our university.
JE:-
IMHO the universities do not reward challenges to authority when they
should be engaged in an active search for such challenges, if and only
if, both the challenges and what is being taught as scientific theory
remains refutable.
> M:-
> One person was teaching evolutionary psychology as an
> established truth (which is his right, and I would happen to agree
with
> the
> conclusions but not the presentation) and despite the existence of a
> discussion board not one student took him to task. Very disappointing.
JE:-
When science becomes as authoritarian as religion then this is the type
of response you should expect. Karl Popper properly identified the
source of such backwardness: a rejection of the process of refutation.
> M:-
> Where did you get the idea from?
JE:-
It was a simple deduction from Darwinism and the empirical facts as we
understand them today. My argument was and remains: any _competent_
evolutionary theorist must make exactly the same deduction. The fact
that the Neo Darwinists that post here have actively opposed this
deduction and have employed blatant evasion of it forces me to conclude
they must be incompetent. I do not regard any deduction as "original".
IMO all originality has to be inductively based.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
>
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Miller on Submarine Vents
- Next by Date: Re: specialization momentum
- Previous by thread: Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- Next by thread: Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
