Joachim Dagg wrote:-
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:JE:- Like it or not, genomic genes form _dependent_
selective _webs_ and not just independent selective
chains. The Neo Darwinistic model of independently
selectable genomic genes is not real. Not a single
independently selectable genomic gene has ever been
documented within nature.
Quoted message said:MR:- I was thinking of the genome a little like a tree -
if most of the branches above (linkage groups or looser
co-evolved groups) is against it whether or not it is
independently selectable in itself does not tell the
whole story.
JD:- I had once invented a slogan for genes, in order to
illustrate to myself how to think of genes as both depending
on each other in forming vehicles and independently
'marching down the generations' as Richard Dawkins would
probably put it. Here's the slogan for free:
<b>Work together inherit apart!</b>
PS: By the way, it also applies to early replicators in
hypercycles.
JE:- Two CRITICAL factors REMAIN to be explicitly examined:
1) What is a testable fitness (can be verified or refuted)
within _nature_ (not just a model simulation of nature).
2) The heritability of such a testable fitness.
_____________________________________________________
Darwinian fitness is: The _total_ number of _fertile_ forms
reproduced into _one_ population by _one_ parent.
_____________________________________________________
Only the above fitness is testable using Popperian criteria.
The Neo Darwinists that post here have shown over the
years that:
(a) They do not know what Darwinian fitness is.
(b) Refuse to learn what Darwinian fitness is.
(c) Failed to realise that only Darwinian fitness
is testable.
(d) Fail to acknowledge the experiment that
confirms this.
(e) Continue to employ organism fitness altruism
(OFA) without any concept of the Darwinian
fitness that must be reduced in order to
prove OFA.
(f) Failed to realise that any valid simplified
model of nature about evolution must have a
general term somewhere within it that represents
Darwinian fitness.
The experiment that proves (c)and(d) is: The reverse
engineering of the above definition so that the experiment
becomes a point of refutation. Here the Darwinian fitness of
each Darwinian selectee (each fertile form) is artificially
kept equal within one natural population, halting all gene
freq. changes caused by natural selection but not gene freq.
changes caused by random processes such as genetic drift and
mutation. The prediction is: all selectee's will degenerate
and become less fit. Proving: Only a single level of
selection is required (thus removing all multi units of
selection by Occam's Razor). Selection can cause evolution
without drift but drift cannot cause evolution without
selection. The Neo Darwinian definition of evolution being
"any gene freq. change in a deme" is incorrect.
Darwin's' explicit view of evolution via natural selection
only used an implicit fitness that was assumed to be
heritable. Because nobody _explicitly_ understood what
Darwinian fitness is nobody has even attempted to measure
its heritability. If Darwinian fitness contains a
heritable component (which it must for Darwinism to work,
which it manifestly does) then the following questions
have to be answered:
i) Darwinian fitness represents a heritable epistatic gene
fitness that has been proven to contain a heritable
component, refuting the Neo Darwinian proposition the
genetic epistasis is "inherited" but "non heritable" and
thus "non selectable".
ii) All genomic genes are only selectable at just ONE
fitness level: JUST the fertile organism level of
selection. This means that without exception, all
genomic genes must be simultaneously selected together
so how they work _together_ in a _heritable_ way is the
_entire_ issue. Suggesting that genes are independently
selected and thus genomically compete with each other
using Hamilton's assumptions is totally wrong. This can
be proven because it can be shown that Hamilton's rule
cannot differentiate between OFA and organism fitness
mutualism (OFM) without explicitly including a general
term within his rule that represents the Darwinian
fitness total of the actor. This missing term will have
the value cmax (the maximum cost to the actor).
The continual and embarrassing errors made by Neo Darwinists
will never be understood and then corrected until they and
their competitors understand exactly, what Darwinian fitness
is and agree to include a general term to represent it
within consistently misused and over simplified models of
evolution. For over 4 years I have been making this same,
simple point.
Regards,
John Edser Independent Researcher
PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia
[email hidden]
