Re: "Algorithms" in Molecular Biology?


"Robert J. Kolker" nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
dougwedel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Yet I wonder: do serious biologists talk in terms of "algorithms"? Can
anyone direct me to such a discussion? And if not, why not?

Algorithms are artificial contrievences constructed by intelligent folks
like us.

JE:-
IOW algorithm's are just synonyms for "simplified/over simplified models"
which are mostly but not exclusively, mathematically based. Mathematics is
not a science. Thus one particular question immediately asserts itself: what
are these models simplified/oversimplified from? Models cannot be validly
employed within the sciences unless an _unambiguous_ answer is provided.
Providing an answer to this question has been evaded within sbe for over 5
years now. The only possible answer is any theory which can be tested to
three criteria

1) Verification.

2) Non verification.

3) Refutation.


It remains important never to confuse a non verification with a refutation
simply because a non verification is NON DEFINITIVE. When employing these
three tests only the refutation test is definitive. Without any possibility
of refutation "anything goes" simply because everything remains 100%
relative to just nothing specified. My detailed worked example within
evolutionary theory is Hamilton's Rule where the unique fitness constant K
which represents the Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF) of the actor remains
deleted within Hamilton's Rule as a deliberate act of oversimplification
(deletion of a critical constant term):


rb > c

Here Hamilton et al have allowed organism fitness altruism to evolve using
just a non definitive 100% relative irrefutable rule. This has allowed cause
and effect to become reversed within the rule.

When the TDF fitness constant now becomes included providing a refutable
proposition Hamilton's becomes:

rb > K-c

Where K = the TDF of the actor.

Now organism fitness altruism cannot evolve and cause and effect cannot be
reversed. This critical correction forces Hamilton's rule to become relative
to a unique constant allowable per Darwinian selectee depicted as K which
counts the total number of STRICTLY fertile forms Hamilton's actor
reproduced into the population concerned. Each Darwinian selectee (one
fertile form) can only produce one total number of fertile forms that it has
reproduced into one population. One _relative_ selective event is produced
whenever one TDF is compared by default to at least one other in the same
population. These relative events occur automatically and immediately, after
each TDF has be produced.

If all historical TDF totals were actually known then every evolutionary
event could in theory, be repeated. If TDF could be accurately predicted
then evolution could in theory, be predicted well before it actually
happened.

What do molecules know and when did the find out? Just because
something resembles and algorithm does not mean it is an algorithm. As
the old joke goes you have Descarte before ze horse. Next thing you will
be saying a dropped object is an algorithm for determining the time it
takes an object to fall to the ground.

A correct "algorithm" here can be any simplification of Newtonian Mechanics
theory where a variable (not a constant) becomes deleted e.g. the
coefficient of friction may be deleted. It should be just obvious that any
simplified/oversimplified model cannot contest or replace the theory the
model was simplified/oversimplified from. Yet this is happening
*UNCORRECTED*, almost all the time within gene centric Neo Darwinism.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher'

edser@xxxxxxxxxx






.