RE: The Cost of Substitution


"Walter ReMine" science@xxxxxxxx wrote:-

JE:-
As things stand, I will not submit a paper for publication to
any journal controlled by what I consider to be a corrupted
evolutionary theory establishment. I cite the rejection of
ReMine's paper "Cost Theory and the Cost of Substitution
- a clarification" as an example particularly relevant
to sbe because this issue has been debated here at some
length. Here is the website created by ReMine to discuss
this matter (from his own perspective):

http://www1.minn.net/~science/Felsenstein_comments.htm

I agree with ReMine that the cost of substitution cannot be zero.


WR:-
Thank you John.
I've been coming here many years, pointing out the contradictions in
the evolutionary literature over the cost of substitution. I've been
challenging evolutionists to address it, and resolve it, one way or the
other: Either the cost of substitution is zero, or it isn't. Yet
evolutionists do not resolve it, nor clarify it. They allow the
confusion to thrive.

Here at sci.bio.evolution, John Edser and I are now perhaps the only
two on record as saying Felsenstein's notion of "zero cost of
substitution" is: confusion, useless, or false -- take your pick.


We are joined (implicitly) by evolutionary geneticists James Crow and
Warren Ewens, who publicly acknowledge my paper on the Cost of
Substitution is correct, which places them in contradiction to Joe
Felsenstein. Though none of the three have addressed their
contradictions in print Moreover, all three have suppressed
clarifications of the matter from their journals. So the confusion
still thrives -- and this newsgroup is an example of it.

Again I call on sci.bio.evolution to resolve the controversy over the
cost of substitution and Haldane's Dilemma.

See my paper at:
http://SaintPaulScience.com/CostTheory1.pdf


JE:-
Here is my analysis for consideration:

http://www1.minn.net/~science/Felsenstein_comments.htm


From the above webpage ReMine Quotes Felsenstein:
"ReMine's treatment ... is also inadequate internally. Take the idea that
substitution requires reproductive excess. Suppose that we have a (haploid)
species with no reproductive excess. Suppose that the environment changes so
that all individuals have 20% less reproduction, except for 10% of them who
have a particular allele, and those continue to barely replace themselves. A
little consideration will show that the replacement will happen, and that
the population will end up 90% smaller. But if there is even a slight
reproductive excess, then with enough time the population will ultimately
recover its numbers. There is then no lower limit on the reproductive excess
needed. (Felsenstein's review)"

ReMine replies:
" Felsenstein chose a scenario that makes the substitution rate exceedingly
slow.3 This is obvious when he says:

the population will end up 90% smaller. But . with enough time the
population will ultimately recover its numbers. (Felsenstein's review)

By making the substitution rate exceedingly slow, he is making the required
reproductive excess exceedingly small - which sets up for what comes next,
in the form of a contradiction. The contradiction seems slight, at first,
and thus is easily overlooked - until you recognize that it goes to the core
issue. I next expose the contradiction:

But if there is even a slight reproductive excess, ... There is then no
lower limit on the reproductive excess needed. (Felsenstein's review)

On the contrary, if there is "a slight reproductive excess", then the lower
limit on it is, in fact, "a slight reproductive excess" - not zero
reproductive excess! His argument fails over that self-contradiction. It
slips passed you unnoticed, because the difference seems so "slight". In his
scenario, reproductive excess is required - not zero - contrary to his
long-standing claim."

JE:-
Felsenstein reasoned that a "zero" cost for substitution can be calculated
using a reduction of the original population by 90%. At the same time
Felsenstein only allows a zero reproductive excess to mean that population
does not get any bigger or smaller, i.e. the population must remain at a
CONSTANT SIZE to define a state of zero reproductive excess providing the
only possible zero cost of substitution that is allowed by Felsenstein's
premises. This means that Felsenstein has contradicted himself when he
allowed a population 90% smaller than the original to become the population
substituted and not the original population.

Epistemological analysis:-
The constant size of the original population was and remains Felsenstein's
only critical frame of reference. However, Felsenstein later "ad hoc"
demotes this to become just a variable allowing him to argue an entirely
relative zero cost of substitution. Felsenstein's supposed "zero" cost is
actually paid for via the creation of a non legitimate NEGATIVE COST (an
invalid hidden _payment_) of 90% of the original population. IOW Felsenstein
moves the goal posts to allow just a mythical zero cost of substitution. He
did this by reducing his only constant frame of reference (the size of the
original non substituted population) by 90% thereby creating a non existent
payment which he invisibly deploys to pay the cost of substitution providing
only an illusion of a zero cost. Epistemologically, Felsenstein reduced his
original constant assumption by 90% turning his one and only legitimate
frame of reference into a variable rendering his solution to always remain
100% relative to nothing defined by anybody allowing "anything goes".

OBVIOUSLY AND REASONABLY the size of the original non substituted population
must remain the only valid frame of reference for calculating the cost of
substituting one gene for another in that population and not Felsenstein's
90% smaller population (or anything else). Using Felsenstein's methodology
anybody can legitimately move the goal posts backwards (or forwards)
allowing an infinite number of mathematically correct "solutions" for the
same cost of substitution problem. These range from IMPOSSIBLE TO DO (the
original population size is "ad hoc" increased to infinity) to IMPOSSIBLE
NOT TO DO (the original population size becomes "ad hoc" reduced to just 1).
Without exactly the one same population size remaining constant from start
to finish acting as a REQUIRED frame of reference for the cost of
substitution problem (disallowing any "ad hoc" changes to it within the same
proposition reducing to just a variable) "anything goes" as a solution for
the cost of substitution

Here is a FICTITOUS (and I hope illustratively humorous and not intended to
be malicious) hypothetical which may help to illustrate Felsenstein's error:

Walter ReMine invests $10000 with The Gene Centric Bank of Neo Darwinism. He
is promised that, at the very least, he will get his money back. ReMine
returns to the bank a year later. The bank manager (Joe Felsenstein)
apologies and says "sorry Walter your investment did not make a profit this
year but you can get your money back". ReMine is not very pleased with this
but is absolutely appalled when Larry Moran (the bank teller) only
(randomly) hands over $1000 and not the $10000 that ReMine had invested.
Walter demands that the bank manager explain this shortfall. Joe Felsenstein
argues (mathematically correctly) that in order for his bank to survive,
$9000 out of every $10000 invested was expropriated and paid into a secret
Swiss Bank account while deeming Walter's original account total to be just
$1000 which, as agreed, would be duly refunded to him.

Subsequently, the high court of Post Modernism refused to allow ReMine's
plea that the bank owes him $9000. It was argued by justice Menegay that
whenever Felsenstein's bank needs to expropriate 90% its depositor's equity
in order to survive (instead of going into debt for the same amount) the
court of Post Modernism will legitimize such an action. This is because it
remains morally relative for the banks deposits to be reduced by 90% simply
because the only critical constant frame of reference (ReMine's $10000 plus
all the other depositors money as one single total) to which everything
within Felsenstein's bank remains relative TO, can be "ad hoc" changed to
another at a time of the Bank's choosing. This was because, justice Menegay
argued, this court can legitimately reflect the morality of our times in
which "everything is relative".

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx













.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Cost of Substitution
    ... The cost of substitution remains EXACTLY deductive from what Felsenstein ... disallows extinction while providing a single measure of zero reproductive ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The Cost of Substitution
    ... ReMine's paper "Cost Theory and the Cost of Substitution ... I agree with ReMine that the cost of substitution cannot be zero. ... substitution requires reproductive excess. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • RE: The Cost of Substitution
    ... The only ethical thing for Felsenstein to have done ... cost concept. ... substitution requires reproductive excess. ... limit on it is, in fact, "a slight reproductive excess" - not zero ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The Cost of Substitution [possible REPOST]
    ... What is the cost of substituting one gene for another in a single ... This changes his only zero excess frame of reference. ... minimally maintaining itself during the substitution. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The Cost of Substitution
    ... You can define "a substitution" to be anything you wish so what you ... The cost at this level becomes a simple deduction ... Felsenstein must supply his so far ... _entirely missing population constant_ as an algebraic term for his zero ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
Loading