"John Edser"  wrote 

> JE:-
> Prof. Felsenstein is simply attempting to divorce the 
> mathematics he is employing, from the biology the mathematics 
> is being invoked to _help_ to, explain.

True, but he's not going to understand what you mean by this. 
NeoDarwinists have surrendered themselves to the assumption that 
unpredicted/unpredictable fluctuations in their genetics based, 
statistical measurement of populations are attributable to chaotic 
causation from the environment (note that I avoided using the 
nonsensical term "chance causation").  I've been trying to get the 
point across that we can't just assume a one to one correspondence 
between these unpredicted/unpredictable fluctuations and chaotic 
causation from the environemnt, but it seems my efforts are 
falling on deaf ears.

Can we measure a population's genes and changes thereof?  Yes.  
Will a population's measured genes change or fluctuate over time 
in ways that are unpredicted/unpredictable to us? ([*] see below)  
Yes.  Does chaotic causation (what Darwin described as randomness) 
produce effects on populations?  Yes.  Can we safely assume that 
the effects of chaotic causation are part of the above mentioned 
unpredicted/unpredictable changes in a population's genes over 
time?  Yes.  Can we assume a one to one correspondence between 
this chaotic causation and these unpredicted/unpredictable changes 
in a population's genes over time?  No way!  

([*] It is assumed that selection can be isolated, eliminated, or 
factored out.  But the reality is that this is never possible.)

If we can't assume this one to one correspondence, why have 
neoDarwinists surrendered themselves to the assumption that these 
(universally observed) unpredicted/unpredictable fluctuations in 
populations' genes are fully attributable to chaotic causation 
from the environment?  Two reasons:
1) They failed to distinguish between the causative effects of 
chaotic phenomena (chaotic causation from environmental factors, 
what Darwin described as randomness and explicitly included in 
his description of NS) and "chance," which is not causative.
2) The gambler's fallacy: a psychological phenomena that can only 
take place if chance is assumed (see 1 above) to be causative.

It is for these two reasons that this problem is so intractable.

> Drift events, by simple _definition_, are independent. Indeed, 
> this assumption can usefully be employed to predict many 
> observed genetic sampling error events. 

Which is a circular argument in that the only thing being 
predicted is the inability to measure/predict.  Strangely enough, 
when we really get down to it, those that maintain that "genetic 
drift" consists of a form of evolutionary causation distinct from 
natural selection are saying, essentially, that our inability to 
measure/predict NS with 100% accurracy gives us license to assume 
this unpredictable/unmeasurable part as being a causative process 
separate from NS.  It is because this problem is so incredibly 
intractable (for the reasons mentioned above) that it is so hard 
(impossible) to convince them that this is nonsense.  If somebody 
isn't inclined to the rigor necessary to maintain the distinction 
between chaotic causation and "chance" there's not a lot one can 
do to force them to understand.



>  . . . applied mathematics just becomes an end in itself.  
> Little thought is given to the correct usage of mathematical 
> models, i.e. as long as the model appears to fit reality, then 
> little else matters. 

No doubt.

I'm starting to wonder if it makes about the same amount of sense 
to argue with a neoDarwinist as it does a creationist.  

Jim
---
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 7/3/03 11:15:39 AM