"Peter F"  wrote:

> > "Tom Adams"  wrote in message 
> > Is there a mathematical or statistical theory of evolution that allow
> > the calculation or estimation of the amount of trial and error it
> > takes to produce a particular organism.

> PF:-
> Others have made good points already, so I only reply reiteratively, 
> and because I can. :-)
> Sure as anything there are and can be no sensible or meaningful 
> such calculation
> For starters, what can possibly be meant by "amount of trial and 
> error"!!!(?)
> But nevertheless what is sure is that "the number" (of whatever 
> would approximately be counted 
> as trials and errors  - if it could be counted) 
> is smaller than all [barely/hardly imaginable] interactions 
> within this Universe. 

JE:-
These are modelling problems and not experimental science
problems. Neo Darwinists refuse to discriminate
between theories and models because they wish
to, quite _incorrectly_, allow mathematical models 
(which they mostly work with) to somehow, become equal to
theory. Such an event only constitutes an impossibility
for the simple fact that all models, without exception,
are only simplifications of a theory. For that theory to
be valid it must be refutable. No model is refutable
because it only heuristically alters/deletes variables
of a refutable theory, i.e. all models, without exception 
are just thought experiments which do NOT represent an 
experiment of NATURE. If a model alters a constant
and not just a variable then it substitutes one absolute 
assumption of a theory (which mostly represents a total of 
some sort) for another. This means this model becomes 
a contesting theory of nature. This model does not,
anymore, represent the theory form which it was derived
by the process of simplification. The model now represents
a contesting theory of nature. If this new theory cannot
be tested to refutation (please note: refutation is NOT
the same process as non verification) then it does not meet 
even a minimal level of acceptability so it cannot compete
and win against any refutable theory the model was originally 
simplified from. 

Some models can be shown to be absurd. One of the
best examples was the "monkey and the keyboard" model.
It was seriously suggested by Neo Darwinists that a finite 
number of monkeys randomly typing on a keyboard could eventually
type out all the works of Shakespeare in order to exaggerate
the power of random processes. Of course, without
a SELECTOR to sort the tons of nonsense from Shakespeare's 
actual words, such an event cannot work. Note also that unless 
yet another selector existed, the probability that these words 
would also be placed in the correct order via just a random 
process approaches zero. This absurd model was banded about 
for years bringing evolutionary theory into disrepute. To
my knowledge nobody form the Neo Darwinist establishment
has ever apologised for such model misuse.

Please note that putting randomly generated words in the 
correct order i.e. not just producing words, constitutes
the equivalent of epistatic information. This information 
remains deleted within population genetics as "non heritable"
and thus "non selectable". This means that the overwhelming majority
of coded information remains deleted via misused model simplification
(not via misused refutable theory) giving Neo Darwinistic
models an artificially easier task to attempt to produce
a model for the question under discussion. Haldane's 
Dilemma, which was hotly debated within sbe just a few 
years ago illustrated the extent of model misuse 
within gene centric Neo Darwinism.

When any model is properly employed
ALL results must become relative to the theory from which
the model was simplified in order to form an experiment
of nature that can help test that theory (not the model).
Such BASICS of scientific method are ignored by the
majority of Neo Darwinists. Today's brave new world is
Post Modern. This is just tech speak for "anything goes".
These people seem to be pioneering another Dark Age. One of 
their first results is that their 100% relativistic logic has 
allowed so called "Creation Science" to now be allowed to be 
taught in science classes in some USA schools because
the basic requirement of Popperian refutability has been
thrown out. On many occasions I have attempted 
to raise discussion in sbe as to how such a travesty could
happen, without a single reply. The Neo Darwinists that
post here refuse to grasp this (and many other) nettles.
Evasion remains their order of the day. Apparently this 
is because the establishment they work for would group 
selected against them if they grasped these nettles
in public, even via sbe discussion.
So, a new witch hunt begins in the name of science. 
Nobody learns so history is forced to repeat 
itself. The next cab off the rank will be histories 
favourite: racism. Epistatic information reduces racism 
defined as additive genes in common to be nonsense because 
additive genetic information can only tell you almost nothing 
re: the TOTAL similarity of formation that can be inherited.
This simple fact was proven by the human genome project which
demonstrated that our genome is only 30,000 or so genes.
This has been revised by some experts down to 20,000.
How can millions of heritable and thus selectable 
phenotypes be coded by just 20-30,000 genes? Easy,
via heritable genetic epistasis that codes for multiplicative
information. This information level was deleted by 
Fisher et al and remains deleted to this very day. 
The old song about circular logic: "There's A Hole In 
The Bucket Dear Henry Dear Henry" applies to Neo
Darwinistic thinking, very exactly....

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au





Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher
---
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 11/13/04 2:49:08 AM