On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 02:46:11 +0000 (UTC), 
John W Edser  wrote:
> Larry Moran wrote,
>> John Edser wrote,

[snip]

> Instead of just snipping  questions about the difference
> between a theory and any simplified model derived from
> it, or the difference between a theory and a hypothesis
> which only constitutes one part of complete theory, I would
> strongly suggest you attempt to enter some discussion on this
> topic.

Nope, not interested. This is a science newsgroup and real science
is what I'm interested in. Take your philosophical quibbles to
some other newsgroup like alt.fan.popper.

[snip]

> Do you deny that in principle, NS can select for mutation 
> and/or drift rates to be increased/decreased?

Yes.

[snip]

> The problem seems to me to be that you are an expert
> specialist model builder, in this field. Ask any specialist
> and they will suggest their speciality is more important
> than any other. This is because specialists do not necessarily
> know how their specialisation fits together to form a theory
> of nature. When you define drift as "evolution" then the
> hook that joins the drift carriage to the theory train becomes
> broken. Instead of having one testable theory you end up with
> sets of unlinked carriages needlessly  crashing into each
> other on the same line. Generalists still remain out of in fashion.
> Until this situation changes, sadly, many specialists will inevitably
> end up misusing their valuable work. However, they will always
> resent  any generalist suggesting this may be the case.

I'm a generalist. I see evolution working in many different ways,
including some of the higher level process of macroevolution.
An example of over-specialization would be someone who insists
that natural selection is the only valid process of evolution
and Charles Darwin was the only person who got it right. Do you 
know any extreme specialists like that?

[snip]

>> The process by which neutral alleles *change* in frequency
>> in a population is called random genetic drift. Have you
>> heard of it?
> 
> Yes, the _modelling process_ by which  _defined_
> neutral alleles just  randomly change in frequency in a
> population is  called random genetic drift. It  remains
> entirely, a random process. This process only produces
> one type of pattern: a random _pattern_.

Nope, you're wrong again. The process leads to either the 
elimination of the neutral allele or its fixation in the
population. Neither of these could be considered a random
pattern. How can you argue so strongly against something
that you don't understand? You've been given plenty of 
opportunity to learn about random genetic drift but you
have refused to learn. Why is that?

> Is it true or false to claim that a _non_ random process
> may have caused this random pattern?

It is true that some people claim that a non-random 
process could somehow account for the observations. 

It is also true that there could actually be some mysterious 
process going on that just happens to look like it's consistent 
with everything we know about population genetics but actually
violates it. It's also possible that there was a second shooter 
on the grassy knoll; Elvis is living in Florida; OJ Simpson
is innocent; there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq;
and the US Air Force has proof that an alien ship crashed in 
Roswell.

[snip]

>> > I note that you just snipped the meat of my post which
>> > concerns the critical difference between a model
>> > and a theory.
> 
>> I did. I'm not interested in your strange philosophy and
>> it has no relevance to sci.bio.evolution.
> 
> So you think that the terms,  "theories",  "models" and
> "hypothesis" all mean exactly the same thing? Why
> then did anybody bother to call them different names?
> Indeed, it seems to me that it is your "philosophy" that
> appears "strange" because it simply equates the above terms!
> Obviously, it remains convenient for you as a model builder
> to assume that they are all just equivalent because you will not
> now  have to bother yourself about sorting out how your models
> mesh with other models from different specialist fields to form
> a valid theory or just hypothesis of a theory.

I'm not interested in your strange views of *my* philosophy.



Larry Moran
---
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 4/12/04 9:02:37 PM