wirtatmar{at}aol.com (Wirt Atmar) wrote:-

> WA:-
> Someone wrote (I lost track in all of the quoting):

JE:-
Very clearly, if everybody initialled all quotes
then such an event cannot happen. We should learn
from nature where parental genes can be similarly
initialled, i.e. imprinted.

> >Why is this? Assuming populaton size to be constant, a single
> >parthenogentic type will, after predation etc have taken their toll,
> >produce 2 p-type offspring, whereas 2 sexual types, M&F, are required
> >to generate 2 offspring s-types. As Catherine Woodgold states, this
> >will lead to an exponential increase of the population size of
> >p-types, with corresponding decline and ultimately elimination of the
> >s-type.

> WA:-
> This statement can be found commonly in the biological literature
> as well --
> and demonstrates more than anything else the relatively low utility of
> theoretical musings in biology (sometimes called "armchair
> biology"). You can
> tell in an instant it's not true. There are relatively few fully
> parthenogenetic species in existence. Clearly, they're
> non-competitive on the
> long-term.
> [btw, I consider myself primarily a theoretical biologist. And I
> unfortunately
> hardly ever get out of my chair].

JE:-
It is the same problem everywhere you look
within gene centric Neo Darwinism: the
deletion via the common modelling process of the
Darwinian fitness maximand and an utter failure
to replace it with any other.

The phrase “they're non-competitive on the
long-term” is the exact point where the Darwinian
maximand has been deleted. This produces an intuitive
“I am amazed” syndrome. Here the mathematics
of the model becomes so outrageous that people
discard it out of commonsense as Dr Atmar has done.
Of course, within the sciences “common sense”
is not a sufficient reason to discard ANYTHING.

These models are consistently misused because
they are incorrectly employed to contest
the theory they were simplified from. A model
is just a tool. A bad workman blames his tools.
The use of a tool to is get a job done more
and not less, efficiently! Models allow you
to construct a heuristic version of a theory,
i.e. allow certain variables within the model
to have values that it is _known_ they cannot
have within NATURE e.g. an infinite or constant
population.

Simplification does not make the model invalid because
these models are only supposed to be used to help
to understand and thus test the theory they were
simplified from. The error of model misuse within
evolutionary theory is twofold:

	(1) The theory the models were simplified
	from has not been sufficiently understood.

	(2) The simplified model has been incorrectly
 	allowed to contest and win against the theory
	it was simplified from.

Within Hamilton’s Rule the process of OVER simplification
has actually deleted ALL theoretical constants from the
model! This reduces the model to just, irrationality.

The misuse of simplified/over simplified models has
become so endemic within evolutionary theory that
the BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES have been reduced to non
testability because of it.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
ţ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/13/04 4:43:18 PM