Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
- From: "John W Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:03:32 -0400 (EDT)
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?
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.
JE:-
I don't think that I had claimed that you had claimed "that the Neutral
Theory of Molecular Evolution was the Theory of Everything" so I don't see
the point of this comment.
You appear to have claimed that the Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution
constitutes a theory in its own right, i.e. Neutral Theory remains
independent of any non random process. Is this correct? I simply challenged
this position for the reasons given.
If Neutral Theory constitutes a "theory as opposed to a belief " but is NOT
"the complete theory of evolution" what then is the complete theory and what
relationship does neutral theory have to it? While I agree that non random
processes can invoke stochastic inputs (and outputs) random processes acting
in isolation to any non random processes cannot constitute a theory of
anything, just a belief which remains mathematically based. This is because
such a random process has no scientific basic, i.e. it is proposed to be
acting outside of any known law of nature.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
- From: Guy A Hoelzer
- Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
- Prev by Date: Re: Article: Scientists propose the kind of chemistry that led to
- Next by Date: Re: Which Tree of Life is more accurate?
- Previous by thread: Two evolved types of mental health problems (resend)
- Next by thread: Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
