Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
- From: John Edser <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:24:08 -0400 (EDT)
johnhewitt22@xxxxxxxxx wrote:-
1) The empirical separation of individuals from populations. 2)
Allow only a single fitness maximand to remain defined within
Darwinian falsifiable evolutionary theory which can act as a
critical required, Galilean (constant) frame of reference for that
theory. 3) Prohibit as a required refutation, any proposition of
total fitness altruism, i.e. TDF cannot be selected to be reduced
as it must be within any truly fitness altruistic act. 4) Enable
total fitness mutualism to be empirically separated from Hamilton's
proposed fitness altruism for the very first time. What passes for
fitness altruism in Hamilton's rule is actually total fitness
mutualism. Social evolution remains entirely based on mutualized
gains (investment) not altruism. Without TDF acting as a
falsifiable, constant frame of reference, fitness altruism cannot
even be separated from fitness mutualism.
I am sorry but none of these points leaves me any clearer about what
body of observational data you are trying to interpret.
JE:-
I will expand each of the above:
1) Would you agree that populations need to remain objectively and
empirically separable from the individuals which may comprise them
within a science of evolutionary theory? If so, how do you propose to
_objectively_ separate individuals from populations?
2) A fitness maximand represents a critical missing value within
current Neo Darwinism such that if it could be measured, it alone
determines which living things are naturally selected FOR in nature.
There are many reasons why things can be selected against but only one
as to why a living thing is selected FOR. This is because only one
fitness can claim to be maximal. I claim this is TDF. A proposed fitness
maximand always remains maximal with absolutely no exceptions otherwise
it isn't a maximand. Therefore, a proposed maximand fitness represents
the top of a specific, non reversible hierarchy which determines how
something in nature is selected FOR. It should be clear that only ONE
fitness maximand per theory can be proposed because if two or more are
proposed they contest until just one remains. For example, you cannot
propose individual organism life spans and parental total reproductive
success per parent per population as fitness maximands within the same
theory. This is because they compete for the same finite resources
(these can be infinite only within mathematics). The longer we attempt
to live the less are the resources which become available for
reproduction and vice versa. More and more resources have to be consumed
with increasing age because of increasing costly repair costs. At some
stage it will pay to die maximizing reproduction rather than pay for
repairs e.g salmon have evolved to die after just one "big bang"
reproductive effort donating their dead bodies to the ecosystem that
feeds their young. Only life spans OR reproductive success can be used
as a fitness maximand within evolutionary theory. In Darwinism
maximizing individual reproductive success trumps attempting to maximize
individual life spans every time. It can be argued that each individual
life span has been selected to be minimal representing a minimand and
not a maximand because this frees up the largest amount of resources for
reproduction.
There are clear maximand parallels within Einstein's Physics. The
critical constant c, which is the velocity of light in a vacuum also
represents an empirically based maximand velocity. In this physical
theory the velocity of light cannot exceed c as a maximand. However
Light can travel at a velocity LESS than c within DENSER mediums e.g.
water. In a denser medium light is still traveling as fast possible for
that medium, i.e. the velocity of light continues to provide a maximand
for any particular medium _even though c may become reduced_. In the
same way, different individual organism fitness maximands (different
TDF's contesting in the same population) present themselves because each
TDF represents the best that each unique parent can achieve in their
environment. What is prohibited is for any proposed fitness maximand to
be SELECTED to be reduced to something less than it could have been. IOW
total fitness altruism remains prohibited simply because fitness as the
proposed maximand within living nature cannot be reduced in this way.
Just as the velocity of light in water can be claimed to remain maximal
for that particular medium i.e. it cannot be reduced to a velocity less
than it could be, TDF for each parent per population while mostly
different remains maximal. Each TDF represents the best each adult
individual can do. Einstein's c is doing the best velocity it can and
TDF represents the best fitness each parent can achieve. In a population
only the largest TDF can be naturally selected for.
In mathematics maximands have to be reduced to constants because that is
the best mathematics can do with the maximand concept. Quite clearly, a
maximand is a more than a constant. Amazingly enough, computer
programmers pioneered the maximand concept not scientists (or
epistemologists). A proposed maximand represents a Galilean (constant)
frame of reference for a particular theory. Falsify a theories critical
frame of reference and that entire theory stands refuted. Something
objective must remain prohibited in every bona fide theory of science
providing an empirically possible falsification for that theory. I claim
that this is a proposed constant acting as a critical frame of reference
for one theory. If this is not the case then a maximand concept is not
being provided. IOW such a theory only presents subjective "handwaving".
If somebody empirically measured the velocity of light in a vacuum to
exceed c then Einstein's Special Theory stands falsified. Simple.
Without this possibility there is no Special Theory just a bunch of
variables which make mathematical sense. Mathematics is not a science
because it cannot define what is and what is not a constant. Just the
one maximand (which becomes reduced to a constant in mathematics) can
validly be proposed per falsifiable theory. In nested sets this means:
only one set can possibly contain all the others in a nested set of
propositions. As just a model: only one circle within one proposed set
of concentric circles can possibly contain all of the other circles.
JE:- My point is that the rules of chemistry remain insufficient to
be able to explain the origin of life.
I think that the mechanism I have given shows that they are
sufficient, though I accept that other people may find other
mechanisms that are also chemically sufficient.
JE:-
I will argue that biology is not just physics. IOW, in order
to be able to explain the origin of life contesting nested sets of
exactly the same physical process will have to be proposed. It is not
just the physical processes that matter but how they are proposed as
nested within contesting theories.
JE:- The concept of fitness has always been basic to an
evolutionary theory proposed as a bona fide theory of science. In
traditional Darwinism something remains selectable only via its
defined fitness.
I am not sure your emphasis on fitness reflects Darwin's position or
even whether he used the term fitness at all in his first edition
(others may know better). He certainly used the term "survival of the
fittest" in later editions but he adopted it from Spencer.
JE:-
Spencer's "survival of the fittest" proposition was invalid because it
is only a stand alone i.e. 100% empty tautology. Spencer provided just a
self referential argument as to how something can be selected in nature
misrepresenting Darwin in the process. IMO Spencer did more harm to
evolutionary theory than just about any person I know. For example,
Spencer and not Darwin paved the way for fascist Social Darwinism via
the misuse of his tautology. To this day most people think of evolution
as "survival of the fittest" despite billions spent on education....
Darwin did not employ the term "fitness" (let alone total fitness as I
define it as TDF). However, I claim Darwin implied fitness. His writings
seem to imply one thing: something remains missing in biological nature
which is maximized.
Also, Darwin developed sexual selection, in which selection is not
strictly about fitness but is related to it indirectly via
observable, phenotypic markers, which are usually taken, in some way,
to indicate fitness.
JE:-
A sexual selective fitness, which is simply maximizing the number of
mates that you can attract remains nested within TDF not the reverse.
You can maximize the number of mates that you attract, if and only if,
this ends up maximizing your own TDF. IOW, what is the point in over
investing in attracting mates it it leaves yourself short on resources
so that you end up reducing the total number of adult forms you
reproduce per population? None at all. IOW, sexual selection remains
subject to natural selection not the reverse. Put another way, sexual
selection remains lower than natural selection within a critical non
reversible, i.e. nested Darwinian hierarchy of proposed fitnesses.
Also, Darwin took domestic breeding very seriously and that process
achieves selection and adaptation in ways that leave fitness
undefinable except in tautological ways (since, in those cases,
fitness exists primarily through the wishes of the selector.) Away
from Darwin's own work, there are other examples too.
JE:-
Conscious selection does indeed mimic the process of unconscious natural
selection BUT IN REVERSE. IOW, set nesting is reversed in each case.
Climbing down a ladder to reach the ground remains essentially the
reverse of the process of climbing up the ladder to reach the roof.
However the goals remain contradictory. It is a terrible mistake to
confuse these processes even when the mechanism is essentially the same
_but in reverse_. Note that sexual selection and natural selection
remain the same thing in Spencer's infamous tautology "survival of the
fittest". This tautology touted Social Darwinism in Darwin's and not
Spencer's name, misrepresenting Darwin in the process. No wonder Darwin
locked himself up in Down House. Darwin remains unique and not
sufficiently understood. Unlike Wallace who proposed group selection
contradicting himself in the process and Spencer who passed off an empty
tautology for a valid evolutionary theory, Darwin alone provided a bona
fide theory of evolution.
Many Regards,
John Edser
Independent researcher
.
- Prev by Date: Re: News: New Nucleotide In DNA Could Revolutionize Epigenetics
- Next by Date: Evolution of sleep
- Previous by thread: Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
- Next by thread: News: Do we need a non-Darwinian industry?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
