Re: Why don't male nipples work?

I didn't claim that the Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution was the Theory
of Everything, or the complete theory of evolution. I claimed it was a
theory as opposed to a belief. I have no problem with theories invoking
stochastic inputs, so I do not feel obliged to explain "random events" to
defend my characterization of Kimura's theory as a theory.

Guy


in article f4indn$2j0f$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, John W Edser at
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 6/10/07 10:43 PM:

"Guy A Hoelzer" <hoelzer@xxxxxxx> wrote:-

This is the kind of BELIEF in Darwinism that Gould and Lewontin railed
against in their Spandrels paper. If you consistently premise research
questions on such a belief, it removes Darwinism itself from science.

JE:-
Guy, do you separate beliefs from theories or do you only separate
different KINDS of beliefs?

I separate beliefs from theories. I wouldn't call an idea a belief unless
or until a critical view of the idea has been abandoned. In contrast, I
wouldn't call an idea a theory unless it is deeply embedded in critical
thinking.

JE:-
Please provide an example.

Kimura's Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution certainly qualifies as a
theory in my book. ALL notions of supernatural action are based on
belief.

JE:-
My apologies for such a late response. My understanding of Kimura's Neutral
Theory of Molecular Evolution is this view remains based on the assumption
that a random process can provide evolution in its own right, i.e. a non
random process is not also required. While it is mathematically true that
just a random process acting alone can provide change, to constitute a
theory of science such a process must exist within a non random process so
that it does not constitute the entire theory . In evolutionary theory the
non random process can only be natural selection because no other has been
proposed. In other words, any theory of evolution via heritable random
change can only be regarded as a form of heritable variation on which non
random natural selection can act. This restricts all random events to
constitute just a small part of any evolutionary _theory_. Random processes
supposed in isolation remain "supernatural" because they assume that an
empirical event is not caused by an predictable law of nature. This being
the case, I find your example contradictory to your proposed way of
separating of a belief from a theory. If you do not agree, how do you
propose to explain random events in a scientific way?

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution is NOT random
    ... allele differences between species -- is caused by genetic drift. ... the falsifiable Darwinian theory of evolution 100% incorporates ... Mathematics is not a science. ... does include evolutionary theory) that a just a random process remains ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Beliefs and Theories
    ... Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution is this view remains based on the ... i.e. a non random process is not also required. ... heritable variation on which non random natural selection can act. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Old theories and New Models.
    ... of the evolution of ideas to be proposed. ... as a random PROCESS) can only form a random PATTERN ... over simplifications of testable theory ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Beliefs and Theories
    ... Theory of Molecular Evolution is this view remains based on the ... random process is not also required. ... non random process can only be natural selection because no other has ... What is the non random process on which Neutral Theory remains dependent? ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
    ... Theory of Molecular Evolution is this view remains based on the assumption ... that a random process can provide evolution in its own right, ... constitutes a theory in its own right, i.e. Neutral Theory remains ... , given stochastic inputs. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)