Re: Haldane's Dilemma and quantitative genetics
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:16:28 -0400 (EDT)
joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Joe Felsenstein) wrote:-
Question for ReMine, Felsenstein, or anyone else familiar with what
ReMine calls "the cost literature": Has anyone published anything
along these lines?
Essentially, no. Though there was, in the late 1960s, some concern with
whether truncation selection that tossed out the individuals that had the
most unfavorable alleles would reduce the cost. Also I notice that
Peter O'Donald had a relevant paper. These citations are from my 1971
paper:
JE:-
It appears Felsenstein et al continue to refuse to CLEARLY DEFINE
the following:-
1) The absolute cost of substitution and payment
2) Just a relative cost of substitution and payment.
Where the critical difference between them is:
(a) The absolute cost of substitution cannot be zero so that a payment
always has to be made.
(b) The relative cost of substitution can be zero so that a payment may not
be required.
Felsenstein made his epistemological position clear enough within sbe years
ago. Briefly my understanding of his position involves the following:-
(i) Everything is relative.
(ii) Science does not require refutable propositions.
(iii)Mathematics is a science.
Clearly, given the above, Felsenstein cannot differentiate between the
absolute cost of substitution and just the relative cost. Felsenstein et al
have a _responsibility_ to make their position clear on these issues.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Haldane's Dilemma and quantitative genetics
- Next by Date: Bombshell?
- Previous by thread: Re: Haldane's Dilemma and quantitative genetics
- Next by thread: Re: Haldane's Dilemma and quantitative genetics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
