John Edser wrote:
>>>>JE:-
>>>>Pardon me butting in but..
>>>>please state what would be EXCLUDED from such an
>>>>_amazingly_ wide acceptance of what you insist can
>>>>_scientifically_ constitute "evolution", i.e. please 
>>>>provide at least one example of a _non_ evolutionary 
>>>>change within a biological system.
>>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>Any change that isn't heritable.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>The above becomes a self fulfilling prophecy 
>>when genetic epistasis is _defined_ as "inherited"
>>but not "heritable" and thus, "selectable". 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Huh?  From the OED definition of heritable: Naturally 
> transmissible or transmitted from parent to offspring; 
> hereditary. You're mixing up being heritable with the 
> qunatitative genetic concept of "heritability" (=the 
> proportion of variance in a trait due to additive genetic 
> variation).  They are not the same thing.
> 
> JE:-
> "Heritability" and "heritable" mean 
> the same thing: a selectable trait.
> You used the word "heritable" 
> and not the word "heritability" as in:
> "Any change that isn't heritable".
> 
In genetics and evolutionary biology, they don't mean the same thing. 
Please try and educate yourself first before making comments like this.

As for epistasis, if something isn't heritable, then it can't be 
inherited.  Genetic epistatic effects can be inherited (because groupds 
of genes can be inherited together), and hence does not come under what 
I was suggesting.




>>>>LM:-
>>>>Did you have something else in mind that would 
>>>>shift random genetic drift into second place?
>>>
> 
>>>>JE:-
>>>>Darwinian natural selection, exactly as Darwin
>>>>stated it but with his implicit assumptions
>>>>made explicit.
>>>
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>I think I should point out that John's definition of fitness excludes 
>>>the possibility of drift (because he defines fitness in terms of the 
>>>actual number of offspring, rather than the expected value).
>>
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>Dr O'Hara has misrepresented my position.
>>>Drift is _included_ as temporal variation
>>>(random variation over time) within Darwinian
>>>selective events. 
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>John, what is your definition of fitness?  I was specifically describing 
>>your definition of fitness, but in your reply you didn't make any 
>>mention of it, so it's not clear to me how I've misrepresented you.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>It is not how I define it but how Darwin
>>would have defined it after his implicit
>>assumptions were made explicit.
>>I have posted what Darwinian fitness is (and the
>>reverse engineering experiment needed to prove it)
>>countless times, including, within this thread. 
>>_____________________________________________________
>>Darwinian fitness is the _total_ number of _fertile_
>>forms reproduced by _one_ Darwinian selectee
>>(one fertile form) within _one_ population. 
>>_____________________________________________________
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> OK, so my point is that drift is the difference between observed and 
> [mathematical] expectation of the change in allele frequency (the 
> expectation coming from a model of selection, using the conventional 
> definition of fitness): 
> 
> JE:-
> The "the conventional definition of fitness" is only
> relative at just ONE single point in time but the Darwinian
> definition is an absolute total over a defined TIME FRAME: 

The time frame is irrelevant to my argument, and discussing it here will 
just make things even more confused.


> 
> BOH:-
> the total number of fertile offspring is the sum 
> of the expected number, and the drift effect.  
> 
> JE:-
> Because any absolute measure of fitness
> has to, since it must also include all
> variation within one evolutionary change.
> Please note that a relative measure of fitness 
> is not sufficient simply because you cannot 
> differentiate between organism fitness altruism 
> (OFA) and organism fitness mutualism (OFM) using 
> just one relative comparative measure.
> 
> While it is possible to separately measure 
> the variation caused by random patterns from
> variation caused by non random patterns,
> it is not possible to say that a random
> variation pattern must have been caused by 
> just, a random process. Drift theorists refuse
> to admit that this is the case and has always
> been the case throughout the history of science.
> This is why science throws out random patterns
> as inconclusive.
> 
> BOH:-
> Your definition conflates 
> the effects of selection and drift, by defining fitness in terms of the 
> obseved number.  Any random variation in the number of offspring that we 
> would ascribe to drift you would include in the fitness measure, and 
> hence would ascribe to selection.
> 
> JE:-
> Yes, 

OK, good.  This is the point I was trying to make: you define fitness in 
such a way as to include any drift effects into it.  So, for you drift 
does not exist, as it's in your fitness measure.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 22 779
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org
---
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 6/18/04 5:22:15 PM