"Anon." 
> 
 
> > JE:-
> > Population genetics is entirely Post
> > Modern in its perspective and has
> > been misused in an ongoing way to
> > reduce evolutionary theory to just
> > an "iron man" theory (an irrefutable
> > theory of nature). Dr O'Hara
> > appears to wish to attempt to
> > enter into such a discussion.
> > However when the hard questions
> > are asked he just snips them
> > and pretends nothing has happened.

> BOH:-
> Dr. O'Hara has given up, because it has become clear that John is more 
> interested in abuse and insult than in trying to understand the logical 
> and factual counter-arguments to his claims.  IIRC, this is the same 
> reason Joe Felsenstein gave up.

JE:-
Dr O'Hara claimed (amazingly) that in my proposed 
experiment to test a proposed Darwinian maximand
of fitness to refutation (which I have always 
claimed remains implicit within Darwin's writings) 
that I had deleted all variation.
Such an event is just an impossibility. You
cannot delete random processes such as
random sampling error or random mutation
from any natural population. Because Dr
O'Hara's error was so basic I questioned
his claim, that he has a PhD in an evolutionary
theory related field. Apparently this constitutes
abuse. 

Prof. Felsenstein has stated that he will
never discuss cause and effect and claims that
the Neo Darwinistic models he works with are not 
testable to refutation. I pointed out to him that all
this means is that he is attempting to maintain 
an irrefutable position where such an position 
allows anything. This reduces Neo Darwinistic
theory to the status of a non testable belief.
I have pointed out to Prof Felsenstein, Dr Moran 
Dr Tyler and Dr Hoelzer that allowing a random process
such a random sampling error (known as genetic
drift) to constitute evolution in its own right via the 
Neo Darwinistic definition of evolution as: any gene 
freq. change in a deme, only reduces evolutionary theory 
to the status of an irrefutable "iron man" proposition 
just like so called "creation science". 

Because Neo 
Darwinists have allowed a non testable to refutation 
definition of evolution, creation science now has an 
equal claim to  be taught in science classes. Therefore, 
I suggested that  Prof. Felsenstein was acting like a 
Pope. Apparently this constituted abuse. I claim that
all the abuse lies in  the fact that a consistent 
misuse of non testable to refutation models has allowed 
creation science into innocent children's science
classrooms. I have also pointed out to Prof.
Felsenstein and Dr O'Hara and NAS (Name and address
supplied but not to sbe readers) that because 
Hamilton deleted the baseline fitness m
from his rule: rb>c such that the total fitness
of the actor was never represented within his
rule it has always been impossible for that rule 
to measure the difference between organism 
fitness altruism (OFA) and organism fitness
mutualism (OFM) as Hamilton et al has claimed
that can do for over 50 years. Dr O'Hara has
agreed that c remains arbitrary within the
rule when only the sign of c allows the rule
to distinguish between OFA and OFM. Dr O'Hara
has also agreed that the rule was "not meant" 
to support OFA after group selection failed to
be able to do so over 50 years ago. Yet Dr
O'Hara refuses to agree that Hamilton's rule
has been misused for over a half a century
to measure when OFA can evolve within nature.

Prof. Felsenstein claims that I abused him
when I claimed that Enron accountants made
exactly the same error as Hamilton et al by 
claiming debits as credits. All I did was point
out that if you condone what Hamilton et al suggests
then to be _self consistent_ you must also condone
what Enron accountants attempted. Hamilton et al
who have proclaimed themselves to be gene centric
Neo Darwinistic fitness accountants but they
cannot distinguish between debits and credits
for any actor because rb-c only constitutes
a 100% relative measure.


Dr O'Hara and Dr Hoelzer have both claimed that
the use of the term "frequency" within 
population genetics constitutes a misuse
because at all times, population genetics
can only measure a "proportion". I pointed
that this means population genetics just 
remains 100% relative in its perspective when
all testable events depend on totals which
are NOT relative to anything. I pointed out that
this is the reason why Hamilton's rule (which
is a population genetics proposition) has been 
entirely misused. The general name for such
misuse is "Post Modernism" which explicitly
claims that EVERYTHING is relative. Perhaps 
Dr O'Hara, Prof. Felsenstein, Dr Moran, Dr Tyler 
and Dr Hoelzer will clear up this basic point 
once and for all. Do any of them claim 
that gene centric Neo Darwinism is Post Modern
in its epistemology?

Dr Hoelzer has claimed that the Popperian process 
of refutation only constituted a "tyranny" so he has
thrown it out. He has charged that I have attempted
to "discredit" him because I pointed out that without
a Popperian standard anything can be taught to
be science, including so called creation science
which he agrees should never be taught by any
science department.

I claim Neo Darwinistic reasoning to be incompetent
and/or hopelessly politically biased because of the reasons
I have provided. Apparently such a claim constitutes 
"abuse". I claim the Neo Darwinistic position
is just an abuse of the scientific process. I
have every right to claim such a thing. However, 
nobody here wishes to debate such a claim. It is all
too obvious to myself and many others that post here
that gene centric Neo Darwinians are attempting
to protect their own tribe at the cost of science.
Such an event, if proven, constitutes unconscionable
behaviour. 

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

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

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/18/04 10:15:55 PM