Haldane's Dilemma
J. W. Edser
Walter ReMine Wrote:-
>snip<
> JAH (moderator):-
> Don't plant thinly-veiled advertisements with a paragraph
> of hand-waving. I await constructive, lucid, COMPLETE postings from
> you; otherwise, don't waste my time.
>snip<
JE:- While it is quite proper for WR to mention
that he has indeed written a book on this subject,
it is indeed improper to use sbe as just a
place to advertise it. I am not suggesting WR has
misused sbe in this way, but I do agree with JAH
that WR must accept the commercial downside as well as
any upside, of posting to sbe. If WR just refers to
his book for a solution to a point of argument
then he may increase the possibility of selling the
book. If however WR provides a completed answer
to the point of argument, then he may reduce the
possibility of a sale of the book, since the completed
argument now exists in a public domain. For WR
to be credible it helps greatly if he shows a _lack_
of vested interest in posting to sbe to sell his book.
In this way I agree with JAH that WR should post completed
arguments to any point of discussion. In the longer term
this will increase his credibility and interest in his book,
anyway i.e. this may well be the better investment for WR
but only for a future and not immediate, gain.
[ Note the similarity this argument has with
cheating Vs non cheating evolutionary strategies!]
> > JF:-
> >In our discussion here, I think ReMine was fairly
> >thoroughly demolished. It took a bunch of posters
> >here a while to get it out that ReMine was actually
> >talking, not about Haldane's Dilemma but about an
> >unrelated phenomenon called the Hill-Robertson effect.
> WR:-
> Not true. In our previous discussion here on sci.bio.evolution, I
> pursued the central concept in Haldane's Dilemma -- the cost of
> substitution. I demonstrated that evolutionists do not agree among
> themselves on its fundamental meaning or what the actual problem is. I
> did this with a key example -- Joe Felsenstein himself, who holds that
> beneficial substitution, even taken one at a time in isolation, can
> incur ZERO cost of substitution. Stripped of the extraneous matters
> (sexual reproduction, diploidy, various selection models, etc.) the
> central issue doesn't get any cleaner, or simpler, than this.
>snip<
JE:-
My understanding of WR argument was
he was suggesting that irrespective of
selection, meiosis etc one minimum basic
cost to substituting one nucleotide for
another exists, that must be paid,
no-matter-what, while JF argues that no
such absolute costing actually exists. It seems
to me that WR isreferring to the cost
of substitution as an absolute concept while
JF is referring to it as only a relative cost.
It would help immensely if :-
1) WR defined the absolute cost of substitution.
2) JF defined a relative cost of substitution.
3) If both gave the most simple hypothetical example
possible for each concept i.e. each provided one
simple descriptive model example.
4) Suggest how each model must be corrected
to be a valid theory that may now describe
in any valid way events in nature, that may
now solve/not solve Haldane's dilemma.
IMHO: WR refers only to an _absolute_
cost of substitution. This refers to
the minimum number of fertile units that
must be _reproduced_ to turn a population
of x units into population y units. WR suggests
that this number cannot be met even within
the most simplified model view possible, let alone when
corrected from this simplified model into a valid
prediction of nature. It appears JF argues that this
is not any absolute cost since ordinary population
maintenance pays that cost and must have been
met if the population size exists in a future time.
In fact JF is using reproductive cost here in strictly
it's relative sense where the cost is relative to
normal population maintenance. If that cost
is equal to normal population maintenance
then it can be just a zero costing.
As I see it the cost of substitution
is EITHER an absolute cost OR a relative cost
where one MUST exclude the other. Unless
both parties here can at least provide
working definitions of what they are both
talking about, they are just talking at
cross purposes and wasting each others time.
If the cost of substitution is
just a relative cost only, what is
the assumed but hidden absolute concept
that allows JF's relative supposition to
exist?
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
laser...@my-deja.com
John Edser wrote:
> My understanding of WR [Walter ReMine's] argument
> was he was suggesting that irrespective of selection,
> meiosis etc one minimum basic cost to substituting one
> nucleotide for another exists, that must be paid,
> no-matter-what, while JF [Joe Felsenstein] argues that
> no such absolute costing actually exists. It seems to me
> that WR is referring to the cost of substitution as an
> absolute concept while JF is referring to it as only a
> relative cost.
John Edser has detected one (of many) garble-factors that kept the cost
of substitution confused, and why Haldane's Dilemma still remains
unsolved after forty-three years.
That is, Joe Felsenstein (as well as most evolutionists today) typically
takes the cost of substitution to be a relative measure. They do this,
for example, through fitness values (such as relative fitness values).
They re-cast the cost of substitution so as to focus exclusively on
fitness. (This occurs, for example, by re-casting the cost concept in
terms of genetic load.) Once that happens, then you run 'round and
'round the tree endlessly, with endless confusions involving the
relative fitness concept (and re-normalization of the math equations
each generation, etcetera).
Are you confused yet?
If so, then you're getting an idea of why Haldane's Dilemma was never
solved.
Let me give a wide-open hint (which shouldn't be necessary at this stage
in the game). The cost of substitution is only tangentially about
fitness values. (I am tempted to say it's not about fitness at all!)
Fitness values are secondary to the issue. The primary issue is
substitution (the growth of a new trait from few to many) and how that
rate is limited by the species' finite reproduction. Nothing can ever go
from few to many without excess reproduction. Absolutely, positively,
no exceptions! Moreover, the RATE at which that increase occurs is
limited PRECISELY by the available reproductive excess. This
relationship -- between the rate of growth and the rate of reproductive
excess -- is quantified precisely in the cost of substitution. Read
that sentence again. Notice it never mentions fitness. The moment you
focus on fitness, you've taken your first step down the road to
garble-ville. And for most people, it's a one-way trip.
The long-lived confusion about the cost of substitution is quite
visible. The good Dr. Felsenstein still claims (as he has since 1971)
that a substitution can often incur ZERO cost. Whether he realizes it
or not, he is claiming that a substitution (from few to many) can occur
even when the population has ZERO reproductive excess. That is a
physical impossibility. It is a fundamental error. The fact that it
has lasted thirty years is a monument to why Haldane's Dilemma was never
solved. Confusions like this should have attracted evolutionists'
attention a long time ago. Felsenstein's error should have never
lasted. Yet it is merely the first of many.
Perhaps you're still confused. That's understandable. Then let me
suggest that you pursue the matter. Pursue it right here on
sci.bio.evolution, if that suits you. Felsenstein himself will probably
discuss it with you. Can evolutionists here resolve this FUNDAMENTAL
issue about the cost of substitution? If not, then you've just proven
my thesis: Haldane's Dilemma was never solved, it was just garbled and
brushed aside.
******
This newsgroup's moderator (JAH) objected to my previous post, saying it
was a "thinly-veiled advertisement" for my book. He has it quite
backwards. This newsgroup was indulging in open assassination of my
book -- without having read it -- and my post was objecting to that
practice! That is, Joe Felsenstein specifically mentioned my book and
that Robert Williams's website "takes ReMine severely to task". In
truth, Williams has not even read my book, his website is a fabrication.
My post was prompted by this rampant misrepresentation of my book at the
hands of evolutionists, and the fact that many here know of this but
remain silent. It is scurrilous of evolutionists to promote a critique
of my book by a man who has not even read it. The attempt by the
moderator to divert attention from this is objectionable. There is
nothing even slightly unfair about my posted response.
[moderator's response: The point is, Walter, since your book is
self-published and available only from you, you are the SOLE SOURCE
of non-misrepresentations (sorry for the strangled syntax) of your
book. It is simply pointless to suggest that various arguments are
addressed in your book, when we are forced to pay you to read said
tome. It is incumbent on YOU to make your argument. Thus far you
have not, though because I am almost supernaturally patient, I am
allowing this thread to stagger on. For now. - JAH]
-- Walter ReMine
_The Biotic Message_
http://www1.minn.net/~science
Felsenstein's post:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=679857459
My response to Felsenstein's misrepresentation:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=682522421
John Edser's post:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=686252160
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jimmcginn
<laser...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tcbl4$cpe$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> Haldane's Dilemma & the cost of substitution --
> John Edser has detected one (of many) garble-factors that kept the cost
> of substitution confused, and why Haldane's Dilemma still remains
> unsolved after forty-three years.
I can testify that this would not be the first time that John has correctly
identified a "garble-factor" in the current paradigm of evolutionary theory.
John seems to be good at recognizing that the practicioners of the current
paradigm have this strange tendency to mistake their artificial models
(which were originally intended only for explanatory purposes) for reality
itself. (This is not to say that John's own thinking is not itself garbled
on some fundamental level. I have shown in this newsgroup, numerous times,
that it is.)
>
> That is, Joe Felsenstein (as well as most evolutionists today) typically
> takes the cost of substitution to be a relative measure. They do this,
> for example, through fitness values (such as relative fitness values).
> They re-cast the cost of substitution so as to focus exclusively on
> fitness. (This occurs, for example, by re-casting the cost concept in
> terms of genetic load.) Once that happens, then you run 'round and
> 'round the tree endlessly, with endless confusions involving the
> relative fitness concept (and re-normalization of the math equations
> each generation, etcetera).
More than any other scientific field, evolutionary biologists do make
liberal use of what can best be described as creative assumptions. Almost
always the validity of these creative assumptions goes unexplained. And if
you challenge the validity of these creative assumptions you will be
ignored.
>
> Are you confused yet?
>
> If so, then you're getting an idea of why Haldane's Dilemma was never
> solved.
>
> Let me give a wide-open hint (which shouldn't be necessary at this stage
> in the game). The cost of substitution is only tangentially about
> fitness values.
I suspect you're correct.
(I am tempted to say it's not about fitness at all!)
> Fitness values are secondary to the issue. The primary issue is
> substitution (the growth of a new trait from few to many) and how that
> rate is limited by the species' finite reproduction. Nothing can ever go
> from few to many without excess reproduction. Absolutely, positively,
> no exceptions!
Okay. Seems reasonable. And I'd always thought Malthuse demonstated the
validity of this notion. I imagine, however, that population biologists
will draw from their misguided "balance of nature" thinking to assume the
existence of some kind of "law" that supposedly contrasts the sensibility of
this malthusian notion. Never underestimate the ability of neoDarwinists
(new synthesis thinkers) to assume creative assumptions.
Moreover, the RATE at which that increase occurs is
> limited PRECISELY by the available reproductive excess. This
> relationship -- between the rate of growth and the rate of reproductive
> excess -- is quantified precisely in the cost of substitution. Read
> that sentence again. Notice it never mentions fitness.
Yes, you are correct fitness is not mentioned there at all.
The moment you
> focus on fitness, you've taken your first step down the road to
> garble-ville. And for most people, it's a one-way trip.
Well I think you're correct. Might I also mention that the practicioners of
the current paradigm have a lot of creative assumptions involved with how
they actually calculate fitness. I've pointed out these problems previously
in this newsgroup. But these problems have been ignored. It seems that the
tradition of assuming creative assumptions in this field of evolutionary
theory is too well ingrained to even bother with the objections I raised.
>
> The long-lived confusion about the cost of substitution is quite
> visible.
Yes. Confusion seems to be the mainstay of the proponents of the current
paradigm. One need only look at my recent refutation of Hamilton's rule
which I thrust upon this newsgroup ten months ago. (Mr, Felsenstein was
unable to do anything but make desperate attempts to obfiscate the issue.)
The good Dr. Felsenstein still claims (as he has since 1971)
> that a substitution can often incur ZERO cost. Whether he realizes it
> or not, he is claiming that a substitution (from few to many) can occur
> even when the population has ZERO reproductive excess. That is a
> physical impossibility. It is a fundamental error.
I suspect you are correct.
The fact that it
> has lasted thirty years is a monument to why Haldane's Dilemma was never
> solved. Confusions like this should have attracted evolutionists'
> attention a long time ago. Felsenstein's error should have never
> lasted. Yet it is merely the first of many.
I agree. I have identified numerous (three to five, depending on how you
count) creative assumptions underlying the neoDarwinistic notion of how
fitness is calculated.
>
> Perhaps you're still confused. That's understandable.
Anybody that says they are not confused is either lying or suffering from
self-deception.
Then let me
> suggest that you pursue the matter. Pursue it right here on
> sci.bio.evolution, if that suits you. Felsenstein himself will probably
> discuss it with you.
Felsenstein has never discussed anything with me. He just declares the
validity of his creative assumptions and then refuses to address the issues
that result.
Can evolutionists here resolve this FUNDAMENTAL
> issue about the cost of substitution?
If we could resolve it it would first involve resolving the issue of what
fitness really is.
If not, then you've just proven
> my thesis: Haldane's Dilemma was never solved, it was just garbled and
> brushed aside.
I suspect you are correct. Not that any of this is news to me.
Evolutionary biology makes use of creative assumptions on such a fundamental
level that such is inevitable.
>
> ******
>
> This newsgroup's moderator (JAH) objected to my previous post, saying it
> was a "thinly-veiled advertisement" for my book. He has it quite
> backwards. This newsgroup was indulging in open assassination of my
> book -- without having read it -- and my post was objecting to that
> practice!
Okay.
That is, Joe Felsenstein specifically mentioned my book and
> that Robert Williams's website "takes ReMine severely to task". In
> truth, Williams has not even read my book, his website is a fabrication.
> My post was prompted by this rampant misrepresentation of my book at the
> hands of evolutionists, and the fact that many here know of this but
> remain silent. It is scurrilous of evolutionists to promote a critique
> of my book by a man who has not even read it.
Unfortunately this is true of the field of evolutionary theory. It is in
the throes of dominant paradigm. It is a paradigm the foundations of which
are with liberal application of creative assumptions. The counterargument
might be that if we did not employ creative assumptions then we could not do
anything in this field. And there may be some truth to this notion. But
the problem is that if there are solutions that will allow us to do away
with these creative assumptions then we will never know because the current
paradigm creates the false illusion that there are no fundamental problems
with the application of these creative assumptions.
The attempt by the
> moderator to divert attention from this is objectionable. There is
> nothing even slightly unfair about my posted response.
>
> [moderator's response: The point is, Walter, since your book is
> self-published and available only from you, you are the SOLE SOURCE
> of non-misrepresentations (sorry for the strangled syntax) of your
> book. It is simply pointless to suggest that various arguments are
> addressed in your book, when we are forced to pay you to read said
> tome. It is incumbent on YOU to make your argument.
Josh may have a point here. As I mentioned above, a few months ago I
claimed to have refuted Hamilton's rule. I then went on to successfully
defend this claim against a number of University paid scientists.
Thus far you
> have not, though because I am almost supernaturally patient, I am
> allowing this thread to stagger on. For now. - JAH]
This is what it comes down to. In reality evolutionary causation is
extremely difficult to measure--even conceptually. NeoDarwinists, bless
their hearts, have made creative use of assumptions that simplify our
conceptualization of evolutionary causation to create the illusion that
evolutionary causation is more measurable than it actually is. Their excuse
is--and some of them will tell you this--that if we didn't do this then we
would have nothing at all. And to some degree they are right. The problem
is that the understanding that they have biult acts as a barrier to any
improvements that might happen along.
Jim
Christopher Mosley
> <laser...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8tcbl4$cpe$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
>> Haldane's Dilemma & the cost of substitution --
>> John Edser has detected one (of many) garble-factors that kept the cost
>> of substitution confused, and why Haldane's Dilemma still remains
>> unsolved after forty-three years.
>> This newsgroup's moderator (JAH) objected to my previous post, saying it
>> was a "thinly-veiled advertisement" for my book. He has it quite
>> backwards. This newsgroup was indulging in open assassination of my
>> book -- without having read it -- and my post was objecting to that
>> practice!
> This is what it comes down to. In reality evolutionary causation is
> extremely difficult to measure--even conceptually. NeoDarwinists, bless
> their hearts, have made creative use of assumptions that simplify our
> conceptualization of evolutionary causation to create the illusion that
> evolutionary causation is more measurable than it actually is. Their excuse
> is--and some of them will tell you this--that if we didn't do this then we
> would have nothing at all. And to some degree they are right. The problem
> is that the understanding that they have biult acts as a barrier to any
> improvements that might happen along.
> Jim
Just in case it hasn't been said: The book is basically an argument for
intelligent design and creation "science".
jimmcginn
"Christopher Mosley" <cmo...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
news:8tsflp$5re$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
I haven't read the book. And I otherwise have no information on Mr.
Remine's thinking.
I am wondering, however, if Remine's book is an argument for intelligent
design along the lines of asserting a third party creator or God--which,
IMO, should have no place in a scientific discussion, or if it asserts
intelligent design along the lines of their being purposefulness of
biological phenomena in the context of larger units of biological phenomena,
such as Gaia--which, IMO, should be given more scientific attention than it
has been as a result of the neoDarwinistic prejudices of the current
paradigm. Maybe Mr. Remine can clear up this issue.
Jim
J. W. Edser
seems to have not been posted]
Walter ReMine wrote:
Subject: Re: Haldane's Dilemma
> > JE:-
> > My understanding of WR [Walter ReMine's] argument
> > was he was suggesting that irrespective of selection,
> > meiosis etc one minimum basic cost to substituting one
> > nucleotide for another exists, that must be paid,
> > no-matter-what, while JF [Joe Felsenstein] argues that
> > no such absolute costing actually exists. It seems to me
> > that WR is referring to the cost of substitution as an
> > absolute concept while JF is referring to it as only a
> > relative cost.
> WR:-
> John Edser has detected one (of many) garble-factors that kept the cost
> of substitution confused, and why Haldane's Dilemma still remains
> unsolved after forty-three years.
> That is, Joe Felsenstein (as well as most evolutionists today) typically
> takes the cost of substitution to be a relative measure. They do this,
> for example, through fitness values (such as relative fitness values).
> They re-cast the cost of substitution so as to focus exclusively on
> fitness. (This occurs, for example, by re-casting the cost concept in
> terms of genetic load.) Once that happens, then you run 'round and
> 'round the tree endlessly, with endless confusions involving the
> relative fitness concept (and re-normalization of the math equations
> each generation, etcetera).
JE:-
I suggest that all relative fitness assumptions
are entirely testable only via ONE absolute assumption
of fitness. In my opinion the most basic of all
differences are always a confusion between
relative values and any assumed absolute values
that are used to allow a relative deductive process.
Could WR please define or produce working
definitions of absolute and relative finesses.
I will make the same request to JF although I very
much doubt that he will ever provide such definitions.
As I stated in my posting, unless such definitions are
at least attempted WR and JF will always be talking past
each other. Unless conflicting points of view have
at least ONE common point of reference any debate
between them is an utter waste of time. Before
WR and JF debate each other they must find this
common ground. The seach for this common ground
is also the point of good will between the
people concerned. If there is no good will to
establish the truth then the debate is also
an utter waste of time.
>snip<
> WR:-
> Nothing can ever go
> from few to many without excess reproduction. Absolutely, positively,
> no exceptions! Moreover, the RATE at which that increase occurs is
> limited PRECISELY by the available reproductive excess. This
> relationship -- between the rate of growth and the rate of reproductive
> excess -- is quantified precisely in the cost of substitution. Read
> that sentence again. Notice it never mentions fitness. The moment you
> focus on fitness, you've taken your first step down the road to
> garble-ville. And for most people, it's a one-way trip.
>snip<
JE:-
Could WR please provide more detailed
reasoning for the above and a simplified
model to see its hypothetical application.
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
laser...@my-deja.com
> Could Walter ReMine please define or produce working
> definitions of absolute and relative finesses.
That's not necessary, my definitions of fitness are not unusual.
Moreover, (as I've said many times now) the focus on, and over-emphasis
of, fitness, is a key reason why the cost of substitution has remained
garbled for so long. If you're focusing on fitness as the central
issue, then you've already started to garble the cost of substitution.
A key example of it is Joe Felsenstein, who claims that beneficial
substitutions can occur with ZERO cost "if the environment is not
deteriorating." I've already given a simple counter-example.
Felsenstein is wrong, both conceptually, and even by simple-minded
application of the existing formulas. See my previous post. Apply any
of the existing formulas for the cost of substitution, it is not zero.
Even if you do not understand the concepts, you can see the cost is not
zero. Felsenstein is wrong.
My larger point is that this central concept -- the cost of substitution
-- has been garbled for many decades, and plentiful evidence of it is
already available on this newsgroup. Evolutionists have not resolved
this fundamental issue.
Haldane's Dilemma was never solved, it was merely garbled and brushed
aside.
-- Walter ReMine
_The Biotic Message_
http://www1.minn.net/~science
My previous post:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=689319969
jimmcginn
<laser...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ucg4p$rkd$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> My larger point is that this central concept -- the cost of substitution
> -- has been garbled for many decades, and plentiful evidence of it is
> already available on this newsgroup. Evolutionists have not resolved
> this fundamental issue.
>
> Haldane's Dilemma was never solved, it was merely garbled and brushed
> aside.
The more reductive one gets into evolutionary biology the more garbled it
becomes altogether. This mostly is a result of the fact that the human mind
takes shortcuts with respect to how it percieves reality. So the
observation that Haldanes dilemma was never solved does not give us any
reason to doubt the validity of natural selection--if this is what you are
trying to say.
Jim
Garett and Catherine
However, despite the religious motive, I'm curious about this 'excess
reproduction' imperative for a new trait to spread through a population. I
don't know that this is necessary. If certain members of a population are
more fit, won't they 'survive', or mate, or otherwise extend their genotype
to the next generation AT The Expense of those without the advanced trait?
That is, supposing the food supply and predation threat is constant, and can
support 100 individuals - won't the competition force the advanced
individuals to survive and reproduce, (and chase the others away from the
food source, or run faster away from the hungry lions) so that the others
die, and the new trait members survive - leaving the population constant in
numbers?
This is what I imagine is a no-cost substitution, to use your language.
Fitness keeps the faster animals from being the stragglers in the chase, and
so avoid being caught. No excess reproduction is necessary in this
scenario, or am I wrong?
"Christopher Mosley" <cmo...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
news:8tsflp$5re$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
laser...@my-deja.com
The interesting thing about Garett's post is that NOT ONE EVOLUTIONIST
STEPS IN TO CLEAR UP HIS ERROR! Garett's post makes the usual,
commonplace, obvious errors, and evolutionists here let it lay there
like a large, ripe egg. I suggest this is a microcosm showing why
Haldane's Dilemma was never solved. It was never solved because many
errors are allowed to thrive. For people such as Garett, who are
curious about motivations, I offer that as food for thought.
Now to Garett's error.
Anytime a trait goes from 'few' to 'many' -- as it does during a
substitution -- then reproductive excess is REQUIRED.
Absolutely,
Positively,
No exceptions!
Therefore, when Garett (or Joe Felsenstein) claim reproductive excess is
not required, that substitution can occur without it, they are
Absolutely,
Positively,
Wrong!
It doesn't get simpler than that.
Garett's post is such a classic confusion, a marvelous example of it!
Notice him bringing in various confusion factors: (1) fitness, (2)
survival versus reproduction, (3) the fit versus the unfit, (4) food
supply, predation, competition, "chase others away", "run faster away
from the hungry lions", (5) the death of the unfit. Notice there is
absolutely no mention of the central issue -- the growth of the new
trait -- therefore he mistakenly sees no need for reproductive excess.
Notice that he never even bothers to apply any of the formulas for the
cost of substitution -- as all of them show the cost is not zero.
Lastly, remember that not one evolutionist stepped in to correct his
errors. Concerning the cost of substitution -- errors are routinely
allowed to thrive. In a nutshell, that is why Haldane's Dilemma was
never solved.
Garett writes:
> I'm curious about this 'excess reproduction'
> imperative for a new trait to spread through a
> population. I don't know that this is necessary.
>
> If certain members of a population are more fit, won't
> they 'survive', or mate, or otherwise extend their genotype
> to the next generation AT The Expense of those without
> the advanced trait?
>
> That is, supposing the food supply and predation threat
> is constant, and can support 100 individuals - won't the
> competition force the advanced individuals to survive and
> reproduce, (and chase the others away from the food source,
> or run faster away from the hungry lions) so that the others
> die, and the new trait members survive - leaving the population
> constant in numbers?
>
> This is what I imagine is a no-cost substitution, to use your
> language. Fitness keeps the faster animals from being the
> stragglers in the chase, and so avoid being caught. No excess
> reproduction is necessary in this scenario, or am I wrong?
-- Walter ReMine
_The Biotic Message_
http://www1.minn.net/~science
Garett's post:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=693221562
My previous post, the one he is responding to:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=686566528
J. W. Edser
Walter ReMine wrote:-
>snip<
>
> Garett's post is such a classic confusion, a marvelous example of it!
> Notice him bringing in various confusion factors: (1) fitness, (2)
> survival versus reproduction, (3) the fit versus the unfit, (4) food
> supply, predation, competition, "chase others away", "run faster away
> from the hungry lions", (5) the death of the unfit. Notice there is
> absolutely no mention of the central issue -- the growth of the new
> trait -- therefore he mistakenly sees no need for reproductive excess.
> Notice that he never even bothers to apply any of the formulas for the
> cost of substitution -- as all of them show the cost is not zero.
>
> Lastly, remember that not one evolutionist stepped in to correct his
> errors. Concerning the cost of substitution -- errors are routinely
> allowed to thrive. In a nutshell, that is why Haldane's Dilemma was
> never solved.
JE:-
Garret like Felsenstein, is assuming that
reproductive excess is always a relative
variable while ReMine appears to be assuming
that it is the exact opposite, always fixed constant
or an absolute maximum measure. Reproductive
excess, like the speed of light in a vacuum can
only be a constant or a variable within one testable
theory of it. You can validly define it _either_
way but such definitions must be used entirely in a
self consistent way until their refutation against
nature. Until ReMine provides his definition of
reproductive excess as a fixed constant or absolute
maximum assumption, it is not possible to understand
his argument AGAINST the relative variable use of
the term "reproductive excess".
I refer reader's to my simplified quantified model
that endeavors to show the relativistic position.
J. W. Edser
Walter ReMine wrote:-
> > JF:-
> > .... If the cost is the reproductive excess necessary
> > to avoid going extinct,
> > then my position, ... that the cost
> > [of beneficial substitution] is zero when
> > there is no environmental deterioration
> > ... is fully justified.
> [WR: my emphasis]
> WR:-
> Felsenstein here has a fully erroneous definition of the cost of
> substitution. He defines it as the reproductive excess necessary TO
> AVOID GOING EXTINCT. But that isn't, and never was the definition.
> Offhand I can't think of any other evolutionist who has published such a
> notion.
JE:-
Felsenstein can define anything any way
he pleases, but he MUST use the same
definition up to its refutation in NATURE.
If it cannot be tested or is not tested
within NATURE, or it is exchanged
"half way", then it is not a valid theory
of NATURE.
If Felsenstein has indeed exchanged his
definition mid-stream, which is possible,
then ReMine MUST provide the previous
definitions of reproductive excess said to
be quoted by Felsenstein which does indeed
contradict the definition he _appears_ to
be using above. To may knowledge, this is
the 1st time Felsenstein even _appears_ to
have defined the term. I am unsure that the
above does indeed constitute a definition
of "reproductive excess" by Felsenstein
and I am even less sure that Felsenstein
will never clarify this matter, anyway.
From previous exchanges with the good
professor, it is my opinion that he is
a master of evasion. It is vitally important
that any definition of the term, or set of
working definitions of it, must apply to NATURE
as one testable theory ot it and not just to a
simplified model of one testable theory of nature!
In the past Felsenstein (and many others
here) have utterly refused to distinguish between
these quite different and opposed, viewpoints.
ReMine to my knowledge has never defined
the term "reproductive excess". Until people
provide at the very least, the set of working
definitions they are using to make sense of any
used term within science, it-is-all-just-an-
utter-waste-of-time!
> WR:-
> It is also wrong conceptually. The cost of avoiding extinction, better
> called the cost of continuity, is precisely 1. That is, each individual
> must, on average, replace themself, or the population will diminish
> irreversibly.
> The other costs of evolution are IN ADDITION to that. Thus, they are
> defined as a reproductive EXCESS, a reproduction in addition to the
> obligatory cost of continuity
JE:-
This is the closest that ReMine has come
to defining the term "reproductive excess".
Here ReMine separates out entirely a constant
"cost of continuity" from ever being included
as "reproductive excess" and ONLY allows
reproductive excess to pay the cost of
substitution. Felsenstein does not separate
out the cost of continuity from reproductive
excess, he includes it within it. Here all
units are strictly in fertile organisms, not
bases, genes, infertile organisms, groups
of fertile organisms or meta groups of them.
Any quantification of genes or bases is entirely
dependent on FIRSTLY the quantification of the
SINGLE Darwinian unit, one fertile organism.
In ReMine's View:-
In any one population:-
Where:-
cC = cost of continuity
rE = reproductive excess
P = population
Then if :-
P = 100
cC = P per generation, as a constant
rE > P per generation.
Thus: for rE to "pay for all substitution" rE
MUST provide an expanding population according
to ReMine, but not according to Felsenstein who
includes the constant cC _within_ rE. For ReMine
no stable population can ever substitute but for
Felsenstein a stable population could be
substituting at a maximal rate. (Please
refer to my model of Felsenstein's entirely
relative view of rE which excludes the constant
cC within rE.)
Once again I call on ReMine to provide
his definition of reproductive excess and
a simple working model of it to show
exactly why the constant cC must _always_ be
excluded from rE, where only rE is ever allowed
to pay for substitution and never the constant
cC.
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
Where:-
rE = reproductive excess.
cC = cost of continuity = 1
P = population size.
>
> Felsenstein arrives at ZERO cost of substitution merely by mis-defining
> it. Evolutionary substitutions require new mutation to go from few to
> many, but that cannot happen without reproductive excess. Absolutely.
> Positively. No exceptions! When Felsenstein says the cost is zero, he
> is trying to make an exception. He has yet to address this simple
> argument.
>
> Lastly, Felsenstein is wrong by simple math. Apply any of the
> traditional formulas for the cost of substitution -- it is not zero. So
> even without the concepts, you can see that Felsenstein in wrong.
>
> ======================
>
> > What exactly prevents the following two changes from happening?
> >
> > I. A favorable mutation.
> > Before, everyone was fitness 1.
> > After, a fraction p of the population has fitness 1+s, AND
> > II. An environmental change that reduces all of these
> > fitnesses (I am discussing absolute fitnesses here) so
> > instead of being 1+s : 1 they are now 0.9*(1+s) : 0.9.
> > I can't see why these contradict each other.
> > Both can happen and the substitution does not stop.
>
> I accept his challenge. I will turn his example into a counter-example.
> Notice that he never mentions REPRODUCTIVE EXCESS (sorry for shouting!),
> yet that is the central issue in the cost of substitution. No wonder he
> doesn't see the problem. Now let me supply it.
>
> First, put the unfit individuals out of your mind, otherwise they'll
> just confuse you. Focus on the fittest individuals. Got that in your
> mind? Now suppose the fittest individuals only have a reproduction rate
> of 1, one progeny per individual. In other words, there is no
> reproductive excess, thus the fittest individuals cannot increase, no
> matter how fit you say they are. They are stuck. They cannot increase,
> for lack of reproductive excess.
>
>
> > Walter ReMine, .... starts out by accusing me of all kinds
> > of bad faith and deliberate misleading of people.
> > ....
> > ReMine's message is clear: he is saying that I am attempting
> > to deliberately confuse and deceive the readers.
>
> I never said any such thing. I never said his confusions were
> deliberate. Rather, I unmask his arguments as though one were unmasking
> a magic trick. I specifically point out the various moves -- and the
> creation of confusion is often a key move (in magic tricks as well as
> bad science arguments). I will not stop doing that.
>
> > Thus ReMine is not talking about a cost paid by the population
>
> That's incorrect. Obviously so. Felsenstein is wasting our time.
>
> -- Walter ReMine
> _The Biotic Message_
> http://www1.minn.net/~science
>
> Felsenstein's main post:
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=693986776
>
> Felsenstein's trivial post:
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=693986771
>
> My previous post:
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=691689058
laser...@my-deja.com
John Edser writes:
> Until people provide at the very least,
> the set of working definitions they are using
> to make sense of any used term within science,
> it-is-all-just-an-utter-waste-of-time!
Edser is onto something there. His statement fits a lot of the
literature on the cost of substitution and Haldane's Dilemma. If the
literature were clear, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Our
debate would have lasted just one round. I would have been trounced
immediately. Instead the debate goes on, and-on, and on, ... The
reason it goes on is because the literature is manifestly confused. I
am documenting this point with every post.
For example, Joe Felsenstein claims (as he has since 1971) that
beneficial mutations have no inherent cost of substitution -- ZERO cost.
Yet all the published cost equations show the cost is NOT ZERO. An
error could hardly be more glaring. And yet, it goes on-and-on,
endlessly, with no evolutionist challenging it explicitly. Yet
virtually ALL of them contradict Felsenstein implicitly. I point out
this curious situation. I call them to resolve it, if only among
themselves. STILL they let it sit there, like a large, ripe egg! It's a
hoot to see! And the more I point it out, the quieter they get.
There is rampant confusion on the cost of substitution -- I am pointing
it out. This is to help you see that Haldane's Dilemma was never
solved, it was merely obscured and brushed aside.
> Thus: for [reproductive excess] to
> "pay for all substitution"
> [reproductive excess] MUST provide
> an expanding population according
> to ReMine, ....
>
> For ReMine no stable population can ever
> substitute
I never said any such thing! Edser's misrepresentation cannot even be
derived from what I said. I said, for a trait to go from 'few' to
'many', reproductive excess is REQUIRED. Absolutely, positively, NO
EXCEPTIONS!
> ReMine to my knowledge has never defined
> the term "reproductive excess".
That is untrue. Edser is quite aware that I discuss the matter
elsewhere.
> Once again I call on ReMine to provide ...
Once again I call on Edser to go to the library...
-- Walter ReMine
_The Biotic Message_
Edser's post:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=695985102
My previous post:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=694884714