Re: Nei's "new mutation theory" resurrects William Bateson
- From: "John W Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:47:19 -0500 (EST)
Arlin <arlin.stoltzfus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:-
This [Baer, et al] explains how, in the "new mutations" view that
(because it works
so well) tends to dominate the thinking of molecular evolutionists,
the rate of evolution is understood to be a product of two factors, a
rate of origin uN, and a probability of fixation, p. This view may be
applied, not just to neutral evolution, but to adaptive changes (eqn.
7, p. 627).
JE;-
Mathematics is not a science. Mistaking good mathematics for good science
is
repeated ab nauseum within polycentric Neo Darwinian argument. Initially,
as
I agree that mathematical formalisms are insufficient to convey
theories, mechanisms or causal relations in science (see Pearl's
excellent book _Causality_).
JE:-
Negative statements mean nothing in themselves because all they can do is
imply a missing positive statement, e.g. 2+2 is not 5 only because 2+2=4.
Without the latter the former has no meaning. So if you agree "that
mathematical formalisms are insufficient to convey theories, mechanisms or
causal relations in science" what exactly constitutes a valid theory which
can? All of the time your debate will focus on this _most basic of
epistemological issues_ so I strongly advise that you attempt to provide an
answer.
Incredibly, you saw fit to just snip and ignore entirely the critical
difference between a random process and a non random process. Would you
please answer the following questions:
1) Do you separate random processes from non random processes?
2) Do you agree or disagree that any random process which remains
unincorporated within a non random process does not constitute a theory of
anything?
3) Do you agree or disagree that just a 100% random base rate of mutation
was and remains absolutely required to provide heritable variation within
evolutionary theory?
4) Do you agree or disagree that any NON random rate of mutation must have
been selected from just a 100% random base rate of mutation?
I also agree that it is insufficient to describe mutation with a
single parameter. I made this point several posts back, when I said
that while N is a scalar, u has "many dimensions". In particular,
mutation exhibits biases that have a predictable influence on the
outcome of evolution.
JE:-
I understand your argument but it appears you did not understand my
criticism of it. What critically matters within the argument that you
presented was: do you propose that these mutation bases are selected from a
just the random mutation base rate or not? If not, where did they come from?
If yes, then your argument was remains, bog standard Darwinism.
Attempts to elevate
selection to the status of a special force uniquely governing
evolution must fail because, in fact, selection is not uniquely
governing evolution.
JE:-
Then what does? Just nothing at all?
Either answer the question or provide reader's with an apology.
Well, I explained dual causation already, but apparently that didn't
sink in.
JE:-
Your proposed causation is epistemologically invalid because it is just a
mathematical proposal in which two mathematical parameters remain
_unincorporated within a theory_ (let alone a falsifiable theory). On the
one had you acknowledge that mathematics is not a science yet on the other
you attempt deploy just mathematics as a science. Contradictions are simply
not allowed within a rational discourse.
I will summarize for you what you decided was reasonable to snip and ignore
within my previous reply:
1) Dual causation remains valid, if and only if, it remains critically
incorporated within the one, same constant frame of reference. I will defer
you to Galileo who was the very first to propose a truly scientific
proposition. In order to be able to just separate the sun centric theory
from the earth centric theory, Galileo required ONE constant frame of
reference. All proposed variables had to be measured relative to just this
and never to just each other because this only provides Zeno's Paradox (see
post). Valid propositions of duel causation cannot allow duel frames of
reference within one, same theory because they will contradict each other.
When your proposed causative duality becomes validly incorporated within the
one, same frame of reference they cannot be supposed to remain equal _if
they are to constitute different things_, i.e. one must become incorporated
within the other within the one same theory as one nested set which can be
visualised as one set of concentric circles of a fixed size where the size
of each circle is provided by a proposed constant within the one, same
theory. Quite obviously, the way around you propose the set nesting of a
theory remains absolutely critical.
2) On an entirely falsifiable basis, the proposed set nesting of Darwinism
reduces an absolutely required random base rate of variation (random
mutation)_ to be a smaller incorporated nested set within Darwinian theory_
while allowing Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF) as the largest possible and
therefore the most outer nested set of the one, same theory. NON random
mutation rates exist nested _between_ these. IOW the random base rate of
mutation remains incorporated within a non random rate of mutation which
remains incorporated within TDF which provides a critical fitness constant
per selectee per population as an empirically falsifiable frame for the
entire Darwinian proposition.
If you were a computer programmer attempting to write a program which could
model Darwinian evolution then the above remains the correct analysis for
it. Reverse any of the above proposed set nestings within the program and
you will end up providing a CONTESTING theory i.e. not a complimentary
theory. Therefore, you have to decide where your proposed non random
mutation mechanism resides as a nested set within your proposed duel
causative proposition of EVOLUTION. A key to this is my proposition that
the empirical way to refute Darwinian theory is to artificially maintain TDF
to remain exactly the same for all selectees within one population 100%
halting natural selection within that population for as long as it can stand
it. This is particularly relevant to your discussion because it is the only
proposed experiment which can _empirically_ separate the effects of just a
100% random process such as sampling error and the base rate of mutation
from any non random process such as non random rate of mutation or natural
selection. My point in a nutshell: ALL other NON random processes of
evolution, which of course includes non random mutation rates, remain
incorporated within the monocentric process of Darwinian natural selection
of a falsifiable basis.
Random processes without selection can only supply heritable variation and
not evolution. Also, any NON random processes which is not Darwinian natural
selection remains critically incorporated within monocentric Darwinian
natural selection and not contesting to it. I will say it again: allowing a
random process to produce "evolution" and not just "heritable variation"
remains the source of a major error within your argument.
In any case, readers don't have to take my word for it.
Edser asked for hard empirical falsifiable science, and here it is:
Rokyta, D. R., P. Joyce, S. B. Caudle, and H. A. Wichman. 2005. An
empirical test of the mutational landscape model of adaptation using a
single-stranded DNA virus. Nat Genet 37:441-444.
Rokyta, et al. carried out one-step adaptive walks in an experimental
system, and compared the results to a theoretical model of adaptation
developed by Allen Orr. They excluded Orr's version on the basis of
its Darwinian assumption that mutation is "random" in the sense of
uniform (no biases). Instead, the model had to be adjusted to account
for mutation bias, which has a predictable influence on the outcome of
adaptation.
JE:-
I do not think that anybody disagrees that NON random mutation empirically
exists and is critically important. However, providing yet another model
verification of the importance of non random mutation to evolutionary is
simply NOT the point. The relevant point to this discussion is: what
empirically causes any non random mutation rates on an falsifiable basis?
The Darwinian answer: natural selection acting on just a proposed 100%
random base rate of mutation. If yourself or anybody else has a different
answer then we all want to understand it.
The relevant mutational effects include a
transition:transversion bias, and differential multiplicity of
mutational paths to alternative states (if that's not clear, its
explained in Stoltzfus, A. 2006. Mutationism and the Dual Causation of
Evolutionary Change. Evol Dev 8:304-317).
Note that Orr's model is a neo-mutationist ("new mutations") model,
and that Rokyta's results concern adaptation, not neutral evolution.
Thus, selection does not "100 % control" evolution.
JE:-
Yes it does, and on an entirely falsifiable basis, simply by using (not just
evading) TDF as the only Darwinian controlling frame of reference for
evolutionary theory. Both yourself and the Neo Darwinists that you think you
are contesting are making the same incorrect analysis of empirically
falsifiable causation within evolutionary theory.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: First cloned human embryo created from skin cell
- Next by Date: Re: Mutationism Redux
- Previous by thread: Re: Nei's "new mutation theory" resurrects William Bateson
- Next by thread: Re: Nei's "new mutation theory" resurrects William Bateson
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
