Re: Darwin's Dangerous Idea
- From: "John W Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:53:04 -0500 (EST)
MattDP <matt_thrower@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:-
The issue is this - Dennet characterises adaptionism as the belief
that *all* characteristics of an organism can be explained in terms of
*maximal* evolutionary advantage (my emphasis is important). This
seems to me to be self evidently and obviously false and what's
further confusing me is that some of the examples he gives would seem
to be self contradictory.
JE;-
The problem here remains twofold:
1) Dennet never points out what a Darwinian MAXIMAND may be, empirically.
All Neo Darwinists hint at one but never openly admit that they do not know
what it is. The Darwinian (falsifiable) maximand is just the total number
of, very strictly, fertile forms reproduced by each parent per population
which I have termed Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF). Note that this fitness
count remains relative to just ONE population and only tallies ONE selectee
type: fertile forms, i.e. it remains entirely moncentric and falsifiable.
The net result: ONLY fertile forms can be selected and ONLY populations of
same can evolve, i.e. never the reverse. OTOH popular, oversimplified,
uncorrected, polycentric models of Neo Darwinism have-their-cake-and-eat-
it-too by allowing at least two contradictory units of selection within the
one same theory allowing populations to become selected (group selection)
and individuals to evolve (gene centricity where one individual now
represents a population of independent in fitness genes).
2) The genes that code for what only appear to be neutral phenotypes remain
fitness bound to at least one other _non neutral gene_ within the same
genome, no exceptions.This has a name: non additive gene fitness epistasis.
All of it remains deleted from popular Neo Darwinian models as just an
uncorrected oversimplification of Darwinism. No matter that any one genomic
gene can independently segregate, not a single gene can claim to have an
independent fitness. IOW any neutrally adaptive gene remains fitness bound
to at least one other adaptive gene within the same genome, no exceptions.
The binding of the fitness of any one allele at one locus to MINIMALLY one
allele at another locus and MAXIMALLY to all the other alleles at every
other locus within the same genome, remains essential for making any
_empirical_. i.e. not just heuristic, evolutionary theory sense.
So much so that I read, and re-read his
definition of adaptionism to see if I'd misunderstood, but he seems to
leave himself no wiggle room. The wikipedia entry on adaptionism would
seem to confirm that definition - "all or most traits are optimal
adaptations".
The first sample he gives is that of the appearance of structures
clearly related to reptilian jawbones in the mammalian ear. While I am
of course entirely happy to accept that the obvious inference one
draws from this is that those structures are evolutionary adaptations
of the reptile jaw, how can they be said to be *optimal*? Can one
seriously argue that a structure which evolved from much more humble
and less elaborate beginnings, or even from some other bone, might not
have served the purpose better and provided for the potential for more
acute hearing?
JE:-
They remain "optimal" in an entirely non additive in fitness epistatic way
where this remain deleted within the Neo Darwinian models employed to
explain them. All selection can do is compare each TDF per population by
default (intersect all TDF sets per population) and then rank the selection
of parents from the selected on down like the result of a race. Don't query
Neo Darwinists about this simple process because they refuse to discuss to
refutation:
1) Any proposed TDF fitness maximand.
2) Their deletion of all non additive gene fitness epistasis within
popular, oversimplified, uncorrected, Neo Darwinistic models of Darwinism
e.g. Hamilton's Rule.
The second example is the flatfish. He makes it clear that he believes
the fact that a flatfish is actually a fish lying on its side with one
eye moved halfway round its head is a prime example of adaptionism.
Again, I find it hard to understand that he's seriously arguing that
this way of "making" a flastfish is in some way more optimal than
having the fish lie on its stomach with its eyes on the top of its
head.
JE:-
What remains optimal is always solved empirically within Darwinian
falsifiable evolutionary theory. If another configuration was better then we
would have observed it. The most important point: the fitness of the genes
that code for the changes to this fish lying permanently on its side remain
100% fitness DEPENDENT, i.e. provide a NON ADDITIVE tally of their fitnesses
and not a fitness independent, additive tally as assumed within polycentric,
oversimplified, uncorrected Neo Darwinian models of monocentric Darwinism.
The net result: they are all selected together within the one same fertile
form and not at all independently. This _severely limits_ what can present
as an optimal configuration for selection.
snip<
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Species Resurrection
- Next by Date: The question: the answer: the tree
- Previous by thread: Re: Darwin's Dangerous Idea
- Next by thread: Feedback wanted on article about Bayesian phylogenetic analysis
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
