Re: The Cost of Substitution



"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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.

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.


Or, just to be sure we are covering all the possibilities, people who
say the cost is zero are using a different notion of 'cost' than the
ones who claim a positive cost.

JE:
Yes, they may be "using a different notion" of cost. What then, are these
different "notions" and how do they shape up? Felsenstein's notion remains
entirely relative whereas ReMine's does not. ReMine's cost is empirically
valid but Felsenstein's isn't. Felsenstein continues to reject the Galilean
principle of relativity in which ANY rational proposition requires an
assumed constant to provide a necessary frame of reference, whereas ReMine
doesn't. Felsenstein reduces the size of the original population (which
provided the only Galilean frame of reference within his argument) to allow
just a 100% zero relative cost of substation demoting this critical constant
to become just a variable, but ReMine does not. ReMine's cost argument
remains rational whereas Felsenstein's never was.

In order to protect his 100% relative position Felsenstein has thrown out
Popper's refutation requirement. He had no other choice because only this
requirement can expose the fact that the cost of substitution solution that
he has proposed did not contain any Galilean frame of reference, rendering
it arbitrary. Felsenstein has previously stated that he refuses to engage in
a discussion of cause and effect. This closed the last door available to
rational criticism because he can reverse these "ad hoc" whenever he wishes.
Felsenstein's solution only makes mathematical sense. Until he includes at
least on constant algebraic term within his solution it has no bearing on
empirically based science.


But, no, that hypothesis doesn't work. That kind of confusion could
never persist after all these years, right?

JE:-
Sorry Jim, no matter how incredible it may seem the evidence exists for
anybody to view for themselves. I remind you (yet again) that mathematics is
NOT a science.


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.

ReMine and Edser, huh? Hmmm. Are you sure that it is the 'evolutionists'
that are allowing the confusion to thrive?
My apologies to Josh, Joe, and sbe in general. I fear that something I
said to a poster named "Creation_By_Science" over on talk.origins might
have been the trigger for this latest appearance here by ReMine. But
maybe it was John who provoked it. Hard to tell whether Walter has been
lurking all this time.

JE:-
Jim, instead of political rhetoric, why don't you attempt to reply to the
issues that have been raised? If you can't, why don't you request
Felsenstein to do so?

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx






.

Relevant Pages

  • 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 Anti Science Art Of Evasion
    ... > ReMine CLAIMS that Felselstein proposed zero ... Felsenstein could easily clear up such a basic point but he refuses to ... a relative net cost which can be zero. ... any of his relative propositions are actually relative to. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • 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. ... Felsenstein continues to reject the Galilean ... evolutionists do not resolve it, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
    ... evolutionists garbled the cost of substitution at it's ... evolutionists do not resolve the confusions and contradictions in their ... how much reproduction does it ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)