> > > > JE:-
> > > > Therefore, I  see no _rational_ argument that
> > > > can allow drift, which can only "cause undirected -
> > > > and most likely in the long term deleterious - 
> > > > changes in the population" to cause evolution, yet
> > > > this remains the Neo Darwinistic position in 2004.
 
> > > TT:-
> > > That's a simple matter of definitions:
> > > Evolution is normally *defined* to be genetic change
> > > in a population.
> > > *Even* deleterious changes fit into that definition.

> > JE:-
> > Drift is just a defined random 
> > process of sampling error.
> > All random processes remain ubiquitous.
> > Therefore, if you define any gene freq.
> > changes via genetic drift as "evolution"
> > and not as strictly "temporal variation" the 
> > theory of evolution becomes a non refutable.
> > You end up reducing evolutionary theory
> > to just a non scientific "iron man" proposition
> > on par with so called "creation science".

> TT:-
> Huh?!?
> Evolution is certainly normally defined as I described.
> It's been the subject of many experimental tests over the years.
> It's not "non refutable".  Rather it's proven beyond reasonable doubt.
> I'm afraid that what you are saying makes no sense.

JE:-
I would suggest you read anything by Karl Popper. 
A valid point of refutation is required for any valid
scientific theory. This requirement is just common sense.
If I am accused of being a witch then I must have the right
to ask what test is definitive for refuting that 
proposition, i.e. what test can I make that could demonstrate
I am not a witch? In the middle ages the accused were
tied in a chair and dunked. If they drowned this proved
they were not a witch but if they survived this proved that
they were! It's just the W.C. Fields syndrome: "there is a sucker
born every minute". Political manipulation of reasoning and
logic has always been endemic. _Rational_ tests have to exist
to refute any proposition otherwise the proposition just becomes
a dictate (again, mostly for political reasons). 

A point of refutation is _not_ a point of non verification.  
If something is supposed to be observed but fails to show
up this does not refute a proposition. However, if something
should never be observed but is, then this may refute a 
proposition. If a proposition cannot provide at least one
such prohibited observation, then the view constitutes an iron man
proposition because it remains irrefutable. The "drift as evolution
without selection" viewpoint cannot be refuted it can only 
be non verified. This is because you cannot delete a
random processes, they remain _ubiquitous_. Unless you can
delete it you cannot test it to refutation. However selection
can be deleted for a significant period of time using the
experiment I have described so it can be refuted.

> TT:-
> Apparently random processes form the foundation of many scientific laws. 
> I refer you to the Boyle's law and the theory of ideal gasses - which
> are based on the hypothesis that gas molecules interact at random.
> What might be "non-refutable" is whether the mutations (or whatever)
> are *really* random - but frankly, nobody cares two hoots about that.

JE:-
Random _patterns_ can be produced by _either_, random or non
random processes.  Thus random _patterns_ can be employed all
the time as just ONE PART of "of many scientific laws" but
not random processes because these can only produce random patterns. 
This means that such processes cannot, just on their OWN, constitute
a valid causative process within the sciences. However the 
drift argument attempts to do exactly this. I have provided
a test of the "drift can cause evolution without
selection", assumption, but only to non 
verification. If you define ANY gene freq. change in a deme
as "evolution" then evolution must become ubiquitous, i.e.
it just becomes an irrefutable proposition. Iron man 
propositions are mostly a result of sloppy/lazy thinking
but they can be engineered into place via the mistaken
belief that an irrefutable proposition is "a good thing"
when nothing could be further from the truth.


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 9/27/04 5:58:24 AM