phillip smith  wrote:-


> > BOH:-
> > Your point that several genetic architectures is one I had not thought
> > about, but is a good one.  It just makes hte maths moer complex (as you
> > have to sum over all of the routes to bipedalism).

> PS:- 
> What do you mean by sum over all the routes to bipedalism. I'm no
> mathematician. 

JE:-
It means that Dr O'Hara has deleted all genetic
epistasis and pleiotropism within his super
simplified models so he now expects that 
his alternative (additive) genetic "routes to bipedalism"
to remain _independent_  of each other including
routes that are only caused by random processes.
This is why he argues that evolution can be caused
by just a random process such as genetic drift
acting alone, i.e. without any non random process 
such as selection. His arguments are super reductive
(as are all population genetics arguments) to
such an extent that reductionism is being utterly
misused to produce invalid (irrefutable) _synthetic_ 
propositions within the science of biology. This reduces
evolutionary theory to just the status of a non testable
belief on a par with nonsensical "creation science".

Evolutionary theory is a _synthesis_ and not just an
analysis. Synthesis requires all model simplifications
to be referred back to the theory from which the
model was derived, i.e. a model cannot validly remain
independent of the theory from which is was derived
by simplification and compete against it! Would
Dr O'Hara please provide at least one refutable theory
from which his simplified models must have been derived.


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 10/29/04 12:52:06 PM