Re: Mutation vs. Variability
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:19:20 -0500 (EST)
"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
If you mean that "drift" is useless as an explanation of adaptation or any
other phenotypic manifestation of evolution, then I agree. But if you
mean
that thinking about drift as an explanation is useless, then I disagree.
JE:-
Drift by _definition_ remains entirely random. This being the case, allowing
drift to provide "evolution" and not just "variation", which within any
testable evolutionary theory may or MAY NOT constitute evolution, reduces
evolutionary theory to just another irrefutable proposition since random
patterns cannot be removed via any known empirical test whereas non random
patterns are removable. Random patterns remain ubiquitous within nature.
Since BOTH random and NON random processes routinely produce random
patterns, drift finds itself in an epistemologically invalid position: it
cannot be uniquely verified but it can be refuted. The verification of a
random pattern does NOT verify ONLY a random process. However, the
verification of a non random pattern does uniquely verify a non random
process, simultaneously refuting the proposition of a random process because
they remain contradictory. For this reason no random process can be fully
tested (provide the possibility of a verification, non verification and a
refutation) forcing all of them remain outside of the sciences.
Moran et al have allowed an enormous epistemological error which will result
is the destruction of evolutionary theory. If should be self evident that
random selection cannot win against non random selection. It should also be
self evident that redefining random temporal variation to constitute
evolution removes an essential variation component from testable Darwinian
theory, emasculating that theory. It should also be noted that this is
exactly the same barren ground traveled by the mutationists so long ago who
foolishly attempted to redefine spatial random variation as evolution. It
seems we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past simply because we
refuse to learn from them.
We are in agreement as to what kinds of explanations are 'useful'. But as
a point of epistemology, if you want to have confidence in your useful
explanation, you need to assess how it stacks up against alternative
'useless' explanations.
JE:-
The word you appear to be searching for (but have consistently evaded) is
*MISUSE*. Drift as just an oversimplified model of a theory can be very
useful in understanding how the theory of evolution by natural selection can
and CANNOT work. Allowing such a model to contest and/or replace its parent
theory constitutes a gross misuse of the drift model. Because ignorant
mathematicians have replaced competent biologists within evolutionary
theory, this type of model misuse has become a Post Modern epidemic over the
last 50 years or so.
That is, we need to know what "drift" is capable
of doing so that we can reliably recognize when something other than
"drift" is involved.
JE:-
Drift can achieve just ONE thing: provide heritable temporal VARIATION and
NOT "random evolution" which is a contradiction in terms.
At least if we wish to be scientists. (I wonder
whether Edser is reading? And I wonder whether this will resonate for
him.)
JE:-
You must provide a definition of science to make sense. My definition:
empirically applied reason. Allowing drift as "random evolution" remains
utterly unreasonable. I have repeated these arguments endlessly for more
than 5 years now but Moran et al (including Felsenstein) have never
responded. Apparently they remain above any critical rationalist approach
preferring to dictate.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher.
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Secretory Pathway
- Next by Date: Re: The status of Infertile forms ( was: What is the evolutionary
- Previous by thread: Re: Mutation vs. Variability
- Next by thread: Re: Extragenetic hereditary?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
