Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list

in article f4pbhk$2qcr$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, John W Edser at
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 6/13/07 11:03 AM:


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.

A theory of everything would not include random inputs because all inputs
would be fully understood within a theory of everything.

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.

Well -- I do claim that the Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution is a
theory in its own right, but I do not claim that neutral molecular evolution
is independent of any non-random processes. Such independence is not a
factor in my understanding of what constitutes a theory (see my
understanding of what a theory is at the beginning of this thread). Maybe I
don't understand your point here.

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?

First let me say that I see all theories of particular phenomena are
artificially severed from all other phenomena. I like the idea of
thermodynamics as a universal framework for all theories (eventually). With
that in mind, I think anywhere you want to cut off the theory of evolution
from the rest would be a bit arbitrary. I am certainly happy to combine
neutral theory with selection theory as a step toward a fuller theory of
evolution.

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.

I don't see it that way. Neutral theory is entirely mechanistic
(constrained by the laws of nature), given stochastic inputs.

Guy


.

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
    ... do you separate beliefs from theories or do you only separate ... Theory of Molecular Evolution is this view remains based on the ... that a random process can provide evolution in its own right, ... You appear to have claimed that the Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)