Epistemologically False Definitions of Evolution.

in article [email hidden], John Edser at
[email hidden] wrote on 12/2/03 8:35 AM:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Incorrect. All random patterns, without exception, can be validly suggested to be caused by
_either_ random or non random processes. This is because non random processes commonly produce
random patterns but random processes can only produce random patterns, by definition.

This is not true. Are you familiar with Turing patterns, for example?

Guy

John Edser said:

Quoted message said:

WA:- The most minimal definition of evolution is merely "a change in gene frequencies," thus if a
population can be shown to have had a change in

the

Quoted message said:

content of its genome over some observable period of time, then evolution can be said to have
occurred. However it is very important to note that this definition explains

nothing,

Quoted message said:

no more than measuring a change in the angle of the sun during the course of

a

Quoted message said:

day explains the nature of celestial mechanics. Both are only easily accomplished empirical
measures of readily observable physical qualities.

Quoted message said:

JE:- The definition of evolution as "a change in gene frequencies" does not exclude random changes
in gene freq. Thus the definition is incorrect because it allows a _non_ testable view of
evolution.

BOH:- Not so, see for example Mueller et al. (1985) Genetics 110: 495-511. The specifically test
changes in allozyme frequency changes to see if the changes could be caused by genetic drift
(sampling error is even easier to test for).

JE:- Incorrect. All random patterns, without exception, can be validly suggested to be caused by
_either_ random or non random processes. This is because non random processes commonly produce
random patterns but random processes can only produce random patterns, by definition. This being
the case, it is logically _impossible_ to refute any claim of evolution being caused by just a
random process.

Rubbish. Read something simple on stochastic processes. Random processes can be characterised by
their properties (means, variances etc.), and then thesecan be compared with the data.

To bring it to the biology - the amount of variation due to genetic drift depends on the effective
population size (N_e). Mueller et al. measured N_e in the butterfly, and then used that to see if
the changes in allozyme allele frequencies were small enough to compatible with the variation
expected from genetic drift. In several cases the variation was much larger than expected.

Bob

--
Bob O'Hara

Rolf Nevanlinna Institute
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5) FIN-00014 University of Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540 Fax: +358-9-191 22 779 WWW: rni.helsinki.fi~bohOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BOH:- The problem was refuting a random pattern without making any assumptions about the process.
It's the same question I have been asking for a few posts.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Perceptual pattern types are just, defined. Only two most basic pattern types are defined to
exist within nature where one type entirely excludes the other,
i.e. no perceived pattern can be both types, simultaneously. These most basic types are: random
and non random patterns. A random pattern is refuted when it is a non random pattern and vice
versa.

Quoted message said:

BOH:- But, to continue to try and get an answer, how do you decide whether a pattern is
random or not?

Quoted message said:

JE:- By definition.

Quoted message said:

BOH:- To give a concrete example, how would you decide whether the following sequence of 30
numbers is random? 2 6 2 1 5 8 1 4 2 3 5 4 6 6 5 5 5 7 4 5 7 4 3 10 6 3 6 7 6 5

JE:- By definition.

BOH:- Which makes it impossible to refute.

JE:- Incorrect! ANY definition provided must be a part of refutable proposition of nature, i.e. be a
part of a fully testable scientific _theory_. The absolute assumption of the proposition is the
refutable part of any proposition. This absolute assumption must be defined and be testable.

Just because you can define a random pattern to be any pattern you like, does not mean that:

1) All such definitions allow a testable proposition of nature.

2) Each proposition is equal in its ability to explain nature.

Science is not anarchy, but does embrace a total freedom to imagine. What has been imagined must be
put to the rigor of testing. If you delete refutation then testing becomes impossible and science
ceases to exist.

The normal definition of a random process as any process that can only cause a random pattern,
allows the proposition of a random process to be refuted but not verified because a _non_ random
process can cause both basic pattern types. The point of the exercise is to be able to separate a
significant observation from a non significant observation. If science can't do this then science
can't observe anything.

Best Wishes,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BOH:- But, to continue to try and get an answer, how do you decide whether a pattern is
random or not?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- By definition.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BOH:- To give a concrete example, how would you decide whether the following sequence of 30
numbers is random? 2 6 2 1 5 8 1 4 2 3 5 4 6 6 5 5 5 7 4 5 7 4 3 10 6 3 6 7 6 5

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- By definition.

Quoted message said:

BOH:- Which makes it impossible to refute.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Incorrect! ANY definition provided must be a part of refutable proposition of nature, i.e. be
a part of a fully testable scientific _theory_.

BOH:- Ah, so you do have to have a process - that's what the theory defines.

JE:- I have always suggested that a process must be assumed to cause any perceptual a pattern and
not the reverse.

If you delete a process as necessarily causative to any pattern then you are left with only a
perceptual pattern causing yet another, perceptual pattern. In this case one pattern just becomes a
defacto process, i.e. you end up playing with words to evade the proposition that processes are
invented to cause patterns and not vice versa. If patterns can substitute for processes then all you
end up with is black redefined as white, sowing confusion.

Quoted message said:

JE:- The absolute assumption of the proposition is the refutable part of any proposition. This
absolute assumption must be defined and be testable. Just because you can define a random pattern
to be any pattern you like, does not mean that:
1) All such definitions allow a testable proposition of nature.
2) Each proposition is equal in its ability to explain nature. Science is not anarchy, but does
embrace a total freedom to imagine. What has been imagined must be put to the rigor of testing.
If you delete refutation then testing becomes impossible and science ceases to exist.

JE:- Please state if you agree or disagree with the above?

Quoted message said:

JE:- The normal definition of a random process as any process that can only cause a random
pattern,

BOH:- Not true - you're the only person I've seen ever using that definition.

JE:- The above working definition is just an epistemological necessity. If both random and non
random processes can produce non random patterns then it becomes impossible to test between a
supposed random or non random process. If processes cannot be separated at just this basic level
then they certainly cannot be separated at any higher level. Once again, in typical post modern
style, you assassinate the testable difference between a random and non random process to
provide for yourself an epistemological blank cheque to be able to say anything you wish in the
name of science.

Quoted message said:

JE:- allows the proposition of a random process to be refuted but not verified because a _non_
random process can cause both basic pattern types. The point of the exercise is to be able to
separate a significant observation from a non significant observation. If science can't do this
then science can't observe anything.

BOH:- I would suggest you look into the literature on statistical analysis and stochastic processes.
We can do all this, and more. It appears to me that you're wholly ignorant of data analysis, and
hence don't have any idea about how to actually test for randomness, or indeed what "random" means
within mathematics and the sciences.

JE:- You just don't get it. At the level we are discussing, the epistemological level, you can
define randomness any way you like. OK? Obviously not all such suppositions are equal, are they?
Please instruct sbe readers on how they should go about sorting through the many _conflicting_
definitions that people would provide.

Happy New Year,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]

[please note email address change]

John Edser said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BOH:- But, to continue to try and get an answer, how do you decide whether a pattern is random
or not?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- By definition.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BOH:- To give a concrete example, how would you decide whether the following sequence of 30
numbers is random? 2 6 2 1 5 8 1 4 2 3 5 4 6 6 5 5 5 7 4 5 7 4 3 10 6 3 6 7 6 5

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- By definition.

Quoted message said:

BOH:- Which makes it impossible to refute.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Incorrect! ANY definition provided must be a part of refutable proposition of nature, i.e. be
a part of a fully testable scientific _theory_.

BOH:- Ah, so you do have to have a process - that's what the theory defines.

JE:- I have always suggested that a process must be assumed to cause any perceptual a pattern and
not the reverse.

Right, so you can't decide decide whether a pattern is random without some reference to a process.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- The normal definition of a random process as any process that can only cause a random
pattern,

BOH:- Not true - you're the only person I've seen ever using that definition.

JE:- The above working definition is just an epistemological necessity.

Only within your epistemology.

We now seem to have moved a long way from evolutionary biology, but as it now appears that you agree
with me on the point I was trying to make, it seems sensible to draw this thread to a close.

Bob

--
Bob O'Hara

Rolf Nevanlinna Institute
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5) FIN-00014 University of Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540 Fax: +358-9-191 22 779 WWW: rni.helsinki.fi~bohOpen ↗