Re: Nei's "new mutation theory" resurrects William Bateson

I don't think anyone with a decent ability to survey "the scence" of
relevant and sufficiently scientifically established principles, theories,
insights, correlations (etc...) - or, IOW, to even just "skim the '~SEPTIC~'
surface" - would deny intrinsic biases in the process of evolution.

And, yes, drift *does exist* but only to any significant extent if its
potential "daftness" is deemed adaptive enough by natural selection (- an
ever excellent example of which is our retinal blindspot).

On this background, the principle of natural selection, amplified in its
explanatory power by the notion of selection "pressures" (yet another
metaphorical enlightenment promoting term), allows *some* of us to grasp
this topic in a *complementary* "EPT" (~=evolution pertaining theoretical)
way.

That is, to understand these things by a (as if) "summing" [over
(fauna-phylogeny-relevant) histories]" naturally selectively relevant and by
genetically mutating individual lifecycles as if crucially
exploited/realized/"taken" (from directly to indirectly so) intrinsic and
environmental potentials or "opportunities" to procreate
+
synaptic hibernation imploring type predicaments
+
by such adversity (that is, approximately, inescapble, irregularly
occurring, and not reproductively survived unless *inducing* of "synaptic
hibernation", predicaments) normally conditioned-in (as in automatically
imprinted) "primal pain" alt. "Pain" (or CURSES, by me) - i.e.
conditioned-in within the actention selection serving system of individuals
in such predicaments.


P.S.
[The two perfectly synonymous nouns, "primal pain" and "Pain" (with a
capital), are jargon formerly usually used by Arthur Janov. Nowadays he
seems to prefer to use just (or mainly) "imprints"; For good reasons, it
seems to me.]

It is likely that both John Edser's and Arlin's (amongst untold other's)
view of these energy-patterning matters may be such that it warrants me
surmising that they have mental (not retinal) blindspots that prohibit an
optimally wide, balanced and in-dEPTh overview of us all (including of
themselves) and other aspects of What Is (and was and will be) going on.


"Arlin" <arlin.stoltzfus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fmo73r$2g4$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 15, 2:30 pm, "John W Edser" <ed...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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_).

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.

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. 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. 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. Instead, the hard
empirical falsifiable science shows that the trajectory of
evolutionary change jointly reflects both the introduction of variants
(including effects of mutation bias) and the reproduction of variants
(selection and drift). This is because evolution is fundamentally a
two-step process, and both steps count. Nevertheless, Darwinists are
deeply committed to the monistic doctrine that, in the words of Ayala
"The ultimate source of explanation in biology is the principle of
natural selection" (Ayala, F. J. 1970. Philosophy of Science
37:1-15.), therefore any attempt to invoke another principle (bias in
the introduction of variation as a cause of non-randomness) must be
denied, or twisted into a reference to selection, as Edser tries-- and
fails-- to do. There is no metaphysical necessity to this monistic
causal doctrine of Darwinists such as Edser. In other scientific
contexts we would allow, for instance, that human behavior is jointly
caused by genes and environment, or that (in a physics context) the
trajectory of a particle can be caused by two distinct forces acting
on the particle simultaneously.

Arlin



.

Relevant Pages