"Anon." 
 
> > JE:-
> > Are you suggesting that sbe readers should
> > just take your word for it when you claim to
> > have a BSc in statistics and a PhD in quantitative
> > biology?

> BOH:- 
> This might be interpreted as impling that I have been lying about my 
> qualifications.  Just to make sure there is no mis-understanding: are 
> you making this allegation, or am I over-interpreting your question.

JE:-
I am just stating the bleeding obvious. In sbe anybody 
can claim to have any type of qualification. Nobody
has any proof of who anybody actually is or what 
qualifications they have/do not have (which I think
is a good thing because arguments here must stand or 
fall entirely on their own merit). Simple
scientific scepticism means that nobody should
take any personal claims on face value within sbe. 

The fact that you claimed that I had deleted all genetic 
variation within natural population is such a _basic_ 
error it has to lead any rational sbe reader to question 
if you are who you say you are and have the qualifications 
that you claim that is all. It is just basic that nobody can 
delete random variation caused by random processes such
as random sampling error and mutation from any
natural population but you can delete them from
a model of such a theory.

It seems very clear to me that you
have been working with oversimplified models for
so long you do not know anymore, the difference
between a theory and a model. I don't think you
are unique in this regard. This weird form of myopia 
seems to have infected an entire Neo Darwinian
establishment. You diagnosed the cause yourself
when you pointed out that within population genetics
the term "frequency" has been consistently 
misused because it _always_ means "proportion".
I pointed out that this means population genetics
cannot see any gene fitness totals just a comparison
of such totals where it is logically impossible to 
deduce what these missing totals are from just 
their comparison. I also pointed out that unless 
these totals can be made explicit evolutionary theory 
cannot be tested to refutation only to non verification 
which is not definitive. I have also pointed out that 
Post Modern epistemology (which assumes everything 
is relative) appears to determine population genetics.
I specifically asked you if you argue that population 
genetics is Post Modern. You flatly refused to address 
any of these issues or answer any of these questions. 
Therefore I claim the right to label such consistent 
evasion: "abuse".

________________________________________________________
The fact that you continue to refuse to provide 
any explanation to sbe readers re: your amazing claim that 
I had deleted all variation within a natural population 
re: the experimental outline I had provided to test to 
refutation my claim of a Darwinian fitness maximand provides 
yet another instance of evasion which appears to form
a consistent pattern of abuse on your part.
__________________________________________________________

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 10/22/04 9:42:17 PM