Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Virgil · Guest

In article <g5hbrg$7b$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
John Edser <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

[quote]Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:

JE:-
Mathematics is not a science, period.

mathematicians are usually aware of this, but scientists often are not,
and may deny it vociferously.

JE:-
In my experience it is mostly mathematicians who do not understand the
critical difference between mathematics and sciences even after the
momentous discovery of Godel.
[/quote]
As I am pure mathematician, while I am aware that scientists use
mathematics, I do not much care how they may be misusing it.

Chemical Pete · Guest

"Tom Hendricks" <tom-hendricks@att.net> wrote in message
news:fu5cpj$2vij$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
[quote]On Apr 15, 6:46 pm, Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 14, 1:17 pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@att.net> wrote:

On the one hand, a planet needs enough gravity to hold
in the necessary gases to have the atmosphere that
leads to life.
On the other, 'there is probably not enough energy in
the most violent volcano eruption to eject gravel size
or larger rocks out of the gravity well of a
terrestrial planet and into space." 'Life As We Do Not
know It.'

Therefore it is highly unlikely for a planet with the
necessary gravity to begin life, to also eject that
life into space.

Comment?

Although I am not a believer in universal panspermia, the
probability of life propagating within this solar system to other
planets does not seem impossible. Your argument has a lot of flaws. I
will give you my version of the theory proposed by scientists in the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory of NASA. If anyone at JPL sees this and
thinks I got it wrong, he should protest.
A bolide collision can produce the necessary energy to project
small objects into space. We know this is true because of tekatites
from the moon and Martian rocks found on earth. The heat and shock
would be distributed unevenly, so there may be part of the ejected
material with living microorganisms. We know this again because of
Martian rocks with gaseous residues. Some microorganisms have a
dormant state which will allow a few of them to survive the millions
of years to fall to a new planet. Bacterial endospores are common
microorganisms on earth. If the organisms are deep in the material
that falls, some microorganisms may survive. Basic physics. Small
bodies can>t burn up due to air friction since they reach terminal
velocity too fast.
I think the individual microorganism has a small if not
astronomically small chance of surviving all this. However, a small
amount of material can contain a lot of microorganisms. The
probability of one or two microorganisms surviving all this out of all
the microorganisms in a livable planet may not be so improbable.
I think NASA has a plausible program for investigating this
possibility. And I don>t think a few manned space missions will do it.
Hundreds of tiny robotic missions is the way to go.
The Hoyle panspermia idea is nonsense.

But note your two examples small objects from the Moon or Mars -
both with less gravity than the earth. I suggest that neither had the
necessary atmosphere needed to start life. Thus you need bigger
planets
to start life, and bigger planets have more gravity and even less
chance
to eject life to space.
Perhaps it is possible - for instance if life had begun before the
bombardment phase - but I still think it is highly unlikely.

Quite so. No meteorites have been identified so far as originating from[/quote]
Earth.

Pete

Virgil · Guest

In article <g5ivqc$s5i$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
John Edser <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

[quote]Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:

I understand that the unaided human eye, under suitable circumstances,
can detect a single quantum of light impinging on the retina.

That strikes me as being a quantum event perceived without the aid of
any machine.

JE:-
I don>t think that the perception of one photon via the unaided human
eye (if true) would validly allow the claim that the human eye can
perceive unaided, one quantum event.
[/quote]
If the mind of that human perceives what his/her eye detected, which is
implied, most others would allow it, and justifiably so.

Tim Tyler · Guest

Chemical Pete wrote:
[quote]"Tom Hendricks" <tom-hendricks@att.net> wrote in message

But note your two examples small objects from the Moon or Mars -
both with less gravity than the earth. I suggest that neither had the
necessary atmosphere needed to start life. Thus you need bigger
planets to start life, and bigger planets have more gravity and
even less chance to eject life to space.
Perhaps it is possible - for instance if life had begun before the
bombardment phase - but I still think it is highly unlikely.

Quite so. No meteorites have been identified so far as originating from
Earth.
[/quote]
The moon originated from the Earth.

Also, life may well have spread to the Earth from Mars.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
reply.

John Edser · Guest

Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:

[quote]JE:-
Mathematics is not a science, period.
mathematicians are usually aware of this, but scientists often are not,
and may deny it vociferously.

JE:-
In my experience it is mostly mathematicians who do not understand the
critical difference between mathematics and sciences even after the
momentous discovery of Godel.

As I am pure mathematician, while I am aware that scientists use
mathematics, I do not much care how they may be misusing it.
[/quote]
JE:-
IMHO it is mostly the reverse: mathematics was and remains misused
within the sciences _by mathematicians working in the sciences_.
Scientists and sadly, the world in general are easily intimidated by
mathematics and the simplified/oversimplified models of empirical
science that mathematicians produce because mathematics is so
appallingly taught. Note that even if you are right, i.e. mostly
scientists are misusing mathematics and not the reverse, your attitude
"I do not much care how they may be misusing it" is in my opinion,
typical of mathematical based arrogance. It seems to me that
mathematicians, somehow, view themselves above the empirically based
world we actually inhabit..

What is required is a no holds barred discussion by MATHEMATICIANS and
SCIENTISTS as to what exactly _does and does not constitute a misuse of
mathematics within the sciences_. I have been attempting to initiate
this here, for over 10 years without success. The attitude is always,
"this has nothing to do with me". One of the best examples of misuse
that I know of is within evolutionary theory. It was Galileo in the mid
1600>s who first taught us how to use mathematics within the sciences:
you absolutely require at least one defined constant in order to provide
a necessary frame of reference otherwise cause and effect proposed
within the science remains reversible and therefore just tautological.
As a mathematician you may appreciate that this has always been
illustrated within Zeno>s Paradox which has been around, unsolved, for
over a 1000 years. The only way to solve Zeno>s is to import from
OUTSIDE of mathematics (as Godel predicted) into what is just an
empirically oversimplified mathematical model of a bona fide proposition
of science, two simple constants: the start and the end of the proposed
race. Only if you measure the distance of both the rabbit and the
tortoise to these proposed constants and not just relative to each other
as variables, can it be calculated when the rabbit overtakes the
tortoise and then goes on to win. It should have been obvious, even to
mathematicians(!), that this proposed oversimplified, uncorrected model
of a theory of a race cannot even start unless these constants are
provided _as propositions from outside of mathematics_ because it is not
possible to give the tortoise a head start unless the start is actually
defined. A head start from where exactly?!? Zeno>s amply sums up the
stupidity of mathematics misused as an empirical based science. Yet,
this stupidity continues unabated within the evolutionary sciences via
the misuse of random patterns as somehow, a proposed valid process of
evolution (the so called Neutral Theory). There is not and can never be
any valid Neutral Theory of evolution just a misused Neutral model which
was and remains oversimplified from Darwinian theory.

My other detailed example was and remains Hamilton>s Rule :rb>c. This is
supposed to provide the conditions as to when an organism fitness
altruistic gene can spread within one population. Just a glance at
Hamilton>s inequality demonstrates that not one single constant term has
been defined within it. IOW the rule has no Galilean frame of reference
so it has about as much chance of making any scientific sense as Zeno>s
Paradox did without the defined start and end of the race acting as a
falsifiable frame of reference. Yet, evolutionary theorists of the
stature of Professor J. Felsenstein have argued here that Hamilton>s
inclusive fitness proposition, which allows more than just the one
fitness maximand per falsifiable unit of selection, constitutes one of
the most important advances in evolutionary theory. IOW, the misuse of
mathematically based oversimplified models of empirically falsifiable
Darwinism continues unabated within evolutionary theory by people who
were and remain, predominately mathematicians.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@ozemail.com.au

John Edser · Guest

Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:-

[quote]I understand that the unaided human eye, under suitable circumstances,
can detect a single quantum of light impinging on the retina.
That strikes me as being a quantum event perceived without the aid of
any machine.

JE:-
I don>t think that the perception of one photon via the unaided human
eye (if true) would validly allow the claim that the human eye can
perceive unaided, one quantum event.

If the mind of that human perceives what his/her eye detected, which is
implied, most others would allow it, and justifiably so.
[/quote]
JE:-
IMO the detection of one photon by the human eye does not constitute the
detection of one quantum _event_. For example, that would require the
unaided human eye to be able to perceive one electron moving
simultaneously from one quantum level to another. While this may be
perceived as a change in the color of the light emitted, the claim that
the unaided human eye has actually perceived one QUANTUM CHANGE is not
correct. A single quantum change is proposed as instantaneous (they
require no time at all) which is way too fast and can only happen with
way too small entities for the human eye to be able to perceive them as
a bona fide change in matter. The proposition that nature moves
instantaneously between quantum levels constitutes a theory for a
particular pattern (a theory for making an observation) forcing us to
devise massive high energy machines which can even attempt to perceive
such a pattern in nature e.g. a cyclotron. No theory of a process as to
WHY exactly, i.e. what causes nature to move instantaneously between
quantum levels has been provided by anybody. Because physics remains
dominated by mathematicians who require no falsifiable frame of
reference to do their mathematics, the quantum theory for the
observation of matter has not been adequately distinguished from a
theory proposed as a process which can explain the quantum pattern in a
falsifiable way.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@ozemail.com.au

Virgil · Guest

In article <g5o1p0$kf9$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
John Edser <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

[quote]Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:-

I understand that the unaided human eye, under suitable circumstances,
can detect a single quantum of light impinging on the retina.
That strikes me as being a quantum event perceived without the aid of
any machine.

JE:-
I don>t think that the perception of one photon via the unaided human
eye (if true) would validly allow the claim that the human eye can
perceive unaided, one quantum event.

If the mind of that human perceives what his/her eye detected, which is
implied, most others would allow it, and justifiably so.

JE:-
IMO the detection of one photon by the human eye does not constitute the
detection of one quantum _event_. For example, that would require the
unaided human eye to be able to perceive one electron moving
simultaneously from one quantum level to another. While this may be
perceived as a change in the color of the light emitted, the claim that
the unaided human eye has actually perceived one QUANTUM CHANGE is not
correct. A single quantum change is proposed as instantaneous (they
require no time at all) which is way too fast and can only happen with
way too small entities for the human eye to be able to perceive them as
a bona fide change in matter.
[/quote]
You choose to DEFINE quantum events as those imperceptible to humans
without some sort of mechanical assistance.

I do not.

John Edser · Guest

CNCabej@aol.com wrote:-

[quote]Explosive evolution of 35 salamander species in northeastern America
also occurred in sympatry based a behavioral transition from
“scratching” mode to an olfactory mode of delivering pheromones during
mating, rather than any change in a relevant gene(s).
Are changes in genes or in allele frequencies necessary for speciation
to occur?
[/quote]
JE:-
Hello Nelson,

I propose that a minimum of three DEPENDENT levels of heritable
variation exist within nature for Darwinian natural selection to act on,
i.e. these three levels of inheritance always act TOGETHER per
falsifiable unit of selection. If they are also considered to be levels
of selection then they are and remain 100% dependent levels, i.e. their
fitness association is strictly multiplicative and not just additive
such that they constitute proper sub sets of each other, i.e. nested
sets of fitness which must never be confused with just the reversible,
intersecting sets of mathematics.

Darwinian evolutionary theory was and remains entirely focused on
allocating one defined total fitness to single units of selection per
population as a falsifiable fitness maximand allowing each population as
one unit of evolution no matter if that population is sympatric or
allopatric.

My proposed minimum of three dependent levels are:

1) The non epistatic gene level: any additive in fitness DNA/RNA gene by
gene association. These can only be found in nature between fitness
contesting genes existing within DIFFERENT FERTILE ADULT BODIES such
that only a mutualized fitness association can remain stable

2) An epistatic gene level" any non additive in fitness DNA/RNA gene
association. These can only be found in nature WITHIN THE SAME FERTILE
BODY such that at least one group of genes are required to provide the
heritable fitness of one phenotype, i.e. NOT JUST SINGLE GENES on a gene
by gene additive basis.

3) An epigenetic level of inheritance for fitness, i.e. any non DNA/RNA
level of heritable variation for fitness. This can only be found within
the same unit of selection.

I define fitness in an entirely objective and falsifiable way: the total
number of strictly fertile forms reproduced per adult form per
population. This I term Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF). It constitutes
the only objective falsifiable fitness proposition that evolutionary
theory has.

As things stand within Neo Darwinism only the primary level of non
epistatic gene fitness associations is even considered. This level has
become so misused as an oversimplified, uncorrected model of Darwinism
that Neo Darwinists actually allocate more than just the one fitness
maximand per falsifiable unit of selection rendering evolutionary theory
irrational. Allocating more than just the one fitness maximand to any
testable unit of selection makes mathematical but not scientific, sense.

Importantly, it is extremely difficult to separate the empirical effects
of epistatic genes as they were described by the pioneering research of
C.H. Waddington from epigenetic heritable elements. For me the single
most important concept is that all three levels remain absolutely 100%
fitness dependent so that they cannot become separated into independent
processes within any valid science of biology as Neo Darwinists continue
to think that they can be via the oversimplified, uncorrected
mathematically based models of fitness which have become so popular over
the last 50 years or so, e.g. Hamilton>s inclusive fitness concept used
by Dawkins as "selfish genes" which simply do not exist within nature.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@ozemail.com.au

,

John Edser · Guest

Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:-

[quote]I understand that the unaided human eye, under suitable circumstances,
can detect a single quantum of light impinging on the retina.
That strikes me as being a quantum event perceived without the aid of
any machine.

JE:-
I don>t think that the perception of one photon via the unaided human
eye (if true) would validly allow the claim that the human eye can
perceive unaided, one quantum event.
If the mind of that human perceives what his/her eye detected, which is
implied, most others would allow it, and justifiably so.

JE:-
IMO the detection of one photon by the human eye does not constitute the
detection of one quantum _event_. For example, that would require the
unaided human eye to be able to perceive one electron moving
simultaneously from one quantum level to another. While this may be
perceived as a change in the color of the light emitted, the claim that
the unaided human eye has actually perceived one QUANTUM CHANGE is not
correct. A single quantum change is proposed as instantaneous (they
require no time at all) which is way too fast and can only happen with
way too small entities for the human eye to be able to perceive them as
a bona fide change in matter.

You choose to DEFINE quantum events as those imperceptible to humans
without some sort of mechanical assistance.
I do not.
[/quote]
JE:-
No, I argued (above) that quantum changes cannot be perceived using just
the human senses. IOW, a machine is required to observe a quantum change.

Quantum theory is not a theory of a causative process just a theory of a
pattern (a perception). Only a proposed falsifiable process my be able
to explain a documented empirical pattern including the quantum pattern.
Mathematics which s used to produce this pattern cannot separate a
process from a pattern because it has no frame of reference to be able
to do so.

Regards,

John Edser

Virgil · Guest

In article <g62eh3$2k16$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
John Edser <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

[quote]Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:-

You choose to DEFINE quantum events as those imperceptible to humans
without some sort of mechanical assistance.
I do not.

JE:-
No, I argued (above) that quantum changes cannot be perceived using just
the human senses. IOW, a machine is required to observe a quantum change.
[/quote]
Which human perception of a single light quantum being absorbed by the
retina disproves.

Guest

sci.bio.evolution

On Jul 21, 1:41 am, John Edser <ed...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
[quote]CNCa...@aol.com wrote:-
Explosive evolution of 35 salamander species in northeastern America
also occurred in sympatry based a behavioral transition from
“scratching” mode to an olfactory mode of delivering pheromones during
mating, rather than any change in a relevant gene(s).
Are changes in genes or in allele frequencies necessary for speciation
to occur?

JE:-
Hello Nelson,

I propose that a minimum of three DEPENDENT levels of heritable
variation exist within nature for Darwinian natural selection to act on,
i.e. these three levels of inheritance always act TOGETHER per
falsifiable unit of selection. If they are also considered to be levels
of selection then they are and remain 100% dependent levels, i.e. their
fitness association is strictly multiplicative and not just additive
such that they constitute proper sub sets of each other, i.e. nested
sets of fitness which must never be confused with just the reversible,
intersecting sets of mathematics.

[/quote]
Hi John,

Let me make clear that in my post I am talking about the epigenetic
mechanisms of speciation, which as far as I know, are the only
mechanisms demonstrated to be involved in the process of speciation in
metazoans. I am discussing the mechanism of the emergence of
evolutionary change that leads to speciation rather than its selection
and spread in populations. This is also my approach to the problem of
speciation in my book; not because the spread of alleles in
populations is unimportant but because the emergence of evolutionary
changes (alleles themselves represent evolutionary changes in genes)
is the crux of the evolutionary process.
As far as the sympatric speciation is concerned let me make the
following remarks:
Firstly, cases of sympatric speciation represent the only cases of
speciation that may presently be subject to experimental verification
(there are no techniques of direct verification of assumed cases of
allopatric speciations that might have occurred in the past).
Secondly, postzygotic reproductive isolation as the main theoretical
mechanism of allopatric speciation generally has not been demonstrated
as a mechanism of allopatric speciation and seems to have been deduced
from the biological concept of species.
Thirdly, there are no demonstrated cases of any changes in genes that
have led to reproductive isolation of populations, although it may be
theoretically possible.
Fourthly, epigenetic (neuro-cognitive) mechanisms are the only
examples that have been empirically demonstrated to lead to incipient
speciation [this is the subject of the most of the chapter 20 (pp.
645-672) of my recent book Epigenetic Principles of Evolution (partly
reproduced on my web site epigeneticscomesofage.com)

Regards,

Nelson

John Edser · Guest

Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:-
[quote]
You choose to DEFINE quantum events as those imperceptible to humans
without some sort of mechanical assistance.
I do not.

JE:-
No, I argued (above) that quantum changes cannot be perceived using just
the human senses. IOW, a machine is required to observe a quantum change.

Which human perception of a single light quantum being absorbed by the
retina disproves.
[/quote]
JE:-
Even the perception of one photon by the human retina, if proved, does
not constitute the perception of one quantum CHANGE.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@ozemail.com.au

Entertained by my own EIM · Guest

Hi John,

May be your promotion of inclusive (holistic but mainly individualistic)
fitness
can make people more wary of the multitude of 'phenotyping'
effects that can flow from just a single (conventionally defined) coding
sequence of the fundamental portion of the heritable recipe for how nature
makes its perfectly ordinary organisms. :-)

However, there is one possible pitfall with using your logical method of
countering the conventionally artificial (and if not completely kaput so
both inEPT and un-Edserian ;>) algebraic accounting for genes that give
groups that have them the advantage over those that don>t.

That is: If one gets too absorbed in poinitng out the wrongness of relative
fitness one may automatically thereby tend to neglect the importance of
analyzing and accounting for how interactivity between phylogenetic factors
(within the Evolutionary Pressure Totality) has produced present day
physiologies - not the least importantly the psychophysiologies of us
people.

Cheers

P

Virgil · Guest

In article <g6at09$100k$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
John Edser <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

[quote]Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com> wrote:-

You choose to DEFINE quantum events as those imperceptible to humans
without some sort of mechanical assistance.
I do not.

JE:-
No, I argued (above) that quantum changes cannot be perceived using just
the human senses. IOW, a machine is required to observe a quantum change.

Which human perception of a single light quantum being absorbed by the
retina disproves.

JE:-
Even the perception of one photon by the human retina, if proved, does
not constitute the perception of one quantum CHANGE.
[/quote]
Such a perception itself constitutes the CHANGE in a light quantum into
something else.

John Edser · Guest

Andresqp wrote:

[quote]JE:-
IMHO it is mostly the reverse: mathematics was and remains misused
within the sciences _by mathematicians working in the sciences_.
Scientists and sadly, the world in general are easily intimidated by
mathematics and the simplified/oversimplified models of empirical
science that mathematicians produce because mathematics is so
appallingly taught. Note that even if you are right, i.e. mostly
scientists are misusing mathematics and not the reverse, your attitude
"I do not much care how they may be misusing it" is in my opinion,
typical of mathematical based arrogance. It seems to me that
mathematicians, somehow, view themselves above the empirically based
world we actually inhabit..
What is required is a no holds barred discussion by MATHEMATICIANS and
SCIENTISTS as to what exactly _does and does not constitute a misuse of
mathematics within the sciences_. I have been attempting to initiate
this here, for over 10 years without success. The attitude is always,
"this has nothing to do with me". One of the best examples of misuse
that I know of is within evolutionary theory. It was Galileo in the mid
1600>s who first taught us how to use mathematics within the sciences:
you absolutely require at least one defined constant in order to provide
a necessary frame of reference otherwise cause and effect proposed
within the science remains reversible and therefore just tautological.
As a mathematician you may appreciate that this has always been
illustrated within Zeno>s Paradox which has been around, unsolved, for
over a 1000 years. The only way to solve Zeno>s is to import from
OUTSIDE of mathematics (as Godel predicted) into what is just an
empirically oversimplified mathematical model of a bona fide proposition
of science, two simple constants: the start and the end of the proposed
race. Only if you measure the distance of both the rabbit and the
tortoise to these proposed constants and not just relative to each other
as variables, can it be calculated when the rabbit overtakes the
tortoise and then goes on to win. It should have been obvious, even to
mathematicians(!), that this proposed oversimplified, uncorrected model
of a theory of a race cannot even start unless these constants are
provided _as propositions from outside of mathematics_ because it is not
possible to give the tortoise a head start unless the start is actually
defined. A head start from where exactly?!? Zeno>s amply sums up the
stupidity of mathematics misused as an empirical based science. Yet,
this stupidity continues unabated within the evolutionary sciences via
the misuse of random patterns as somehow, a proposed valid process of
evolution (the so called Neutral Theory). There is not and can never be
any valid Neutral Theory of evolution just a misused Neutral model which
was and remains oversimplified from Darwinian theory.

My other detailed example was and remains Hamilton>s Rule :rb>c. This is
supposed to provide the conditions as to when an organism fitness
altruistic gene can spread within one population. Just a glance at
Hamilton>s inequality demonstrates that not one single constant term has
been defined within it. IOW the rule has no Galilean frame of reference
so it has about as much chance of making any scientific sense as Zeno>s
Paradox did without the defined start and end of the race acting as a
falsifiable frame of reference. Yet, evolutionary theorists of the
stature of Professor J. Felsenstein have argued here that Hamilton>s
inclusive fitness proposition, which allows more than just the one
fitness maximand per falsifiable unit of selection, constitutes one of
the most important advances in evolutionary theory. IOW, the misuse of
mathematically based oversimplified models of empirically falsifiable
Darwinism continues unabated within evolutionary theory by people who
were and remain, predominately mathematicians.
[/quote]

[quote]I am a biologist very much interested in the use of mathematical
models in biology, specially in evolution. I was wondering if you
could help me to get more information about the subjets discussed
before. Particulary about hoe to recognize valide mathematical models
in science.
thanks for the attention,
[/quote]
Hi Andres,

I have provided here, two detailed examples within the biological
sciences of the misuse of mathematics:

1) The constant misuse of just the random process of genetic drift
(sampling error within proposed "Neutral Theory") as somehow, a valid
theory of evolutionary change IN ITS OWN RIGHT when all it can ever
provide is heritable, random variation for the non random process of
natural selection. The ONE SINGLE falsifiable theory of evolution that
we have, as it was proposed by Charles Darwin, argued that ubiquitous
random heritable change, which can only constitute variation and not
evolution, must be acted on using the non random process of natural
selection WITHIN THE ONE, SAME THEORY to produce EVOLUTION. However,
mathematicians working within the evolutionary sciences artificially
separate just the random process of drift from the non random process of
natural selection and then proceed to propose that one can somehow,
validly contest the other e.g. please refer to the posts to sbe of Dr L.
Morand.

Note that the misuse of genetic drift as evolution and not as just
variation always working with selection within the one same falsifiable
theory of science represents a repeat of the early mutationist argument.
All this succeeded in doing was to hold up a better understanding of
evolutionary theory for many years. The mutationists argued that random
mutation constituted an evolutionary change in its own right and not
just a change in random variation. Neutral Theory repeats the same
invalid separation but only because they can be separated within
mathematics. _They cannot be separated within the sciences_.

2) The misuse of W.D. Hamilton>s oversimplified and uncorrected model of
falsifiable Darwinism known as "Inclusive Fitness". It was this misused
model that Dawkins deployed to promote his "selfish gene" concept which
only provided a mis-characterization of evolutionary theory. Hamilton>s
model was based on a mathematical idea by JBS Haldane (one of the
founding fathers of population genetics) in which he allowed the fitness
indivisible fertile organism of Darwinism to be broken down into
heuristic, contesting, additive units of selection when NO EMPIRICAL
OBSERVATION OF NATURE will allow it. In Hamilton>s model individual
genes contest the fertile organism they exist entirely within as
somehow, independent units of selection in their own right. This
required the deletion of all epistatic (non additive) gene fitness
associations within the Darwinian fertile form as a drastic, uncorrected
oversimplification of Darwinism. This surgery performed on Darwinian
theory by mathematicians was required in order to explain what was only
misconceived to be fertile organism fitness altruism (FOFA). Darwinism
100% prohibits FOFA as a refutation of of Darwinian theory! What the
proponents of Hamilton>s Inclusive Fitness ended up arguing is that more
than just the one fitness maximand can be validly allocated to the one,
same falsifiable unit of selection. Such a silly proposition was and
remains contradictory within the sciences BUT REMAINS VALID WITHIN
MATHEMATICS. The problem here is that mathematics, unlike the sciences,
has no Galilean (constant) frame of reference. Please refer to the many
posts I have posted to sbe on this critical topic. It was Galileo who
firstly showed us how to validly employ mathematics within the sciences.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@ozemail.com.au


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Biological Evolution Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5