Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection
- From: John Edser <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 00:37:27 -0500 (EST)
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:-
So that by itself doesn't explain
the theorem stating that the complexity is noncomputable. Something
else is going on.
JE:-
This "something else" is genetic epistasis as a non additive gene
fitness within synthetic (not to be confused with analytic) genetics.
All non additive epistasis remains deleted within poly-centric Neo
Darwinism allowing independent gene fitnesses within oversimplified
models. Falsifiable, Mono-centric Darwinism, from which all non
falsifiable poly-centric Neo Darwinistic models are derived via the
process of oversimplification (Total Darwinian Fitness as an epistatic
fitness was and remains deleted) presents the only bona fide theory that
we have. Epistatic, mono-centric fitnesses _ uniquely allow nested sets
of fitness_ within one unit of selection. It is these that can be used
to begin a calculation of complexity, e.g. a triploblastic form is more
complex than a diploblastic form because it provides one extra nested
subunit of selection.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection
- Next by Date: Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection
- Previous by thread: Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection
- Next by thread: Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|