Re: Bet Hedging, Risk Aversion, Sex, and the Unit of Selection


"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> > > > > A good example of a theory might be Boyle's law of gasses.  It
> > > > > states an empirically testable rule that nature seems to follow.
> > > >
> > > > > On the other hand, Maxwell provided a model of gasses as a
> > > > > collection of hard billiard balls bouncing around in space.
> > > > > It was a very successful model, even though we know that
> > > > > atoms and molecules are NOT hard billiard balls.
> > > >
> > > > > Maxwell's models had considerable success in EXPLAINING
> > > > > Boyle's law and other features of gasses, including the
> > > > > way that the speed of sound depends on gas density and
> > > > > pressure.  But it failed to explain the specific heats of
> > > > > most gasses.
> > > > > Yet even this failure of the model was instructive
> > > > > and explanatory, since it suggests that not all gasses are
> > > > > composed of hard billiard balls - some of them seem to act
> > > > > more like hard dumbbells, some like stretchable dumbells, etc.

> > > > JE:-
> > > > Ok. The model was very useful but cannot replace its parent theory.
> > > > That is all I am saying. Do you agree or disagree?

> > > Would you consider it evasive if I were to demand that you first
> > > name the 'parent theory'?

> > JE:-
> > Evasion can only be attempted by refusing to answer a question and not
> by
> > asking a question. Therefore it would be evasive if I did not answer.

> > > snip<

> > > John, as I have said before, I don't think that models usually arise
> > > by simplification of a parent theory.

> > JE:-
> > I have provided many examples where this was the case. Please provide
> just
> > one example where this is not the case.

JE:-
Please provide this missing example.

Also, please answer the question you evaded above (by just asking another
question): 

The model was very useful but cannot replace its parent theory. That is all
I am saying. Do you agree or disagree?


> > > In fact, in this case, the
> > > first thing worth calling a theory - the "atomic theory of gasses",
> > > arose by complexification of a parent model.

> > JE:-
> > Please clearly identify the "parent model" you are referring to and
> describe
> > the "complexification" it underwent.

> Maxwell's initial simple billiard ball model was complexified by Boltzman
> and by Maxwell himself to become something good enough to be called a
> 'theory' - the atomic theory of gasses or perhaps 'Statistical Mechanics'.

JE:-
What they did was make it "acceptably" simplified from Newtonian Mechanics
by empirically demonstrating that results allowing a +/- error for the known
simplifications could be verified _empirically_. This did NOT mean that
'Statistical Mechanics' can now validly replace Newtonian Mechanics!


> > > Unless you consider the parent of Maxwell's model to be the 'elastic
> > > theory of gasses', in which case Maxwell's model and its successors
> > > DID replace their parent.

> > JE:-
> > The parent theory to Maxwell's model was Newtonian Mechanics.

> Ok, John.  I can see how you might adopt that viewpoint.  

JE:_
Thank you for your understatement. What are all these other viewpoints that
you claim are valid and exist?

> But then
> wouldn't it be the case that most pop-gen models, including Hamiltons,
> are simplified from a parent theory which is Mendelian Genetics, not
> Darwinian Evolution?

JE:-
No, these models were simplified/oversimplified from a synthesis of the two
most important refutable theories that exist within the science of biology:

1) The Darwinian mono-centric theory of evolution by natural selection.
2) The Mendelian gene theory wherein heritable genes independently segregate
at meiosis providing the Mendelian ratio.

What was _deliberately_ deleted as a cognitive choice within the gene
centric Neo Darwinian simplified/oversimplified _model_ synthesis of these
two theories was: a _vast_ amount of _critical_ non additive gene
relationships including every known empirical gene fitnesses (I have
excluded "insilico" as validly empirical). 

Independent segregation did not allow independent gene fitnesses. Also, the
verification of polygenetic traits (a trait coded for by the alleles at more
than one locus where all the allele effects simply added up to form that
trait e.g. human skin color) did NOT verify polygenetic fitnesses no matter
how you define fitness.

The reason as to why all the professionals that post here have chosen to
ignore Waddington's "Post Neo-Darwinian" paradigm published about 50 years
ago which included for the very first time a variable for epistasis (the
model of which I posted here in the thread "Waddington's Revision of
Haldane") is because it provided the necessary proof for three unacceptable
things:

1) The gene centric Neo Darwinian establishment was and remains biased.
2) All the commonly employed gene centric Neo Darwinian Models can be proven
to have been derived from exactly the same parent theories via a deliberate
process of simplification/oversimplification of these theories.
3) These commonly employed simplified/oversimplified models have been and
remain, chronically misused because they were allowed to replace their
parent theory/theories e.g. Hamilton's Rule.



Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxx










.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bet Hedging, Risk Aversion, Sex, and the Unit of Selection
    ... refutable theory known as the parent theory. ... > collection of hard billiard balls bouncing around in space. ... Neo-Darwinian" model which is much less of a simplification of empirically ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Bet Hedging, Risk Aversion, Sex, and the Unit of Selection
    ... > Note that contrary to the standard ambiguous meaning of these terms I have ... > refutable theory known as the parent theory. ... > A Simplification: deletes or changes any variable assumed by ... > Please explain why in your opinion just the ambiguous meaning of these terms ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Humans as apes on Wikipedia
    ... Look at who your sole ally is, Gene. ... The Duck is not my ally; he's not supported my position, ... do you think that this sort of simplification of a ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
Quantcast