john edser

JE:-
Just for once I thought that EK may, at long last, be making a
_positive_ contribution instead of acting like the resident sbe Piranha.
But no, vindictive Nihilism still dominates EK's "contributions" to sbe:

reason

JE:-
Anybody who runs a business knows the difference between a total gross
cost and a relative net cost including any 10 year old who can
successfully run a lemonade stall. If the total gross cost of a dozen
lemons required to make a dozen glasses of lemonade is $2, brown rice
syrup as sweetener $1 (even as I kid I never wished to damage the
pancrease of people with sucrose so I used maltose as a sweetener) and
the water is free, then the gross cost of each glass of lemonade is
$3/12 = 25 cents. This gross total cost has to be paid no matter what
even if not a single glass is sold. The relative net cost of each glass
approaches zero as the number of glasses of lemonade that is sold
increases. If the lemonade is sold at 50c a glass then six glasses 6*50c
= $3 have to be sold before the net cost per glass reaches zero.

ERGO: Felsenstein can only be arguing a relative net cost to be zero for
substituting one allele in one population. If he is arguing that the
total gross cost was zero then no payment is made, i.e. the 10 year old
with the lemonade stall either stole the dozen lemons and brown rice
syrup of just conjured them up by magic. I very much doubt if
Felsenstein is arguing for magical solutions so he must be arguing a net
(relative) zero cost. This being the case Felsenstein is REQUIRED to
define what the gross total cost for substituting one gene in one
population actually is and what it is being compared to in order to
RATIONALLY argue for a VALID zero cost of substitution. So far
Felsenstein has refused to do so and astonishingly, I remain the only
sbe poster that is actually requesting him to do so...

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au

ekurtz99

Moi a Piranha? And here's me thinking I was an Enron accountant. Is
this a promotion?

john edser

JE:-
Most certainly :-) A Piranha is never as stupid as an Enron Accountant
simply because man is always more stupid than nature.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au

john edser

high.

JE:-
OK, Lets take a quick look at the best of the "nonsense" Edser has
posted here: Edser's best "nonsense" is his outrageous claim to have
posted the only empirically refutable concept of fitness that exists:
Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF) on which Edser continues to base all of
his arguments in an entirely self consistent way. While both Jim Mene***
and Jim McGinn pay cheap lip service to Popper's basic and obvious
requirement that any valid scientific theory must be empirically
refutable both of them continue to peddle non refutable theories of
evolution while failing to discriminate between a non verification and a
refutation, i.e. they cannot/refuse to tell the difference between a dud
penny and just no penny at all. Other "nonsense" that Edser has
contributed to sbe discussion includes actually having the temerity to
differentiate between dependent and independent levels of fitness within
evolutionary theory, critically pointing out that both the popular gene
level and the entirely abused infertile form level remain fitness
dependent on just the one, same, Darwinian fertile form level of
selection which is the only empirically based level that actually exists
within evolutionary theory. Apparently it was always been nonsensical
for Edser to continue to argue that only dependent and not a independent
gene fitness actually exists within nature simply because all gene
fitnesses were, and remain to this very day, empirically epistatic.
Apparently Edser is simply not allowed to request the Neo Darwinist's
that post here to minimally provide at least one do***ented in nature
example of a NON epistatic fitness before they can validly assume that
all genomic gene fitnesses remain fitness independent within popular Neo
Darwinistic models. Apparently it remains valid for Felsenstein et al to
post arguments to sbe that unnecessarily and minimally double the cost
of substitution within one population simply because these arguments
assume that one infertile form is equal in fitness to one fertile adult
as an entirely uncorrected gross oversimplification of Darwinian theory.
Apparently it was quite unreasonable for Edser to request Felsenstein to
define what his gross total cost of substitution is and what exactly it
is being compared to in order for Felsenstein to validly be able to
claim that his net relative cost of substitution can be zero. Apparently
Edser's claim that any ten year old who runs a lemonade stall
successfully must understand the difference between a total gross cost
and a relative net cost was "insulting" simply because Jim Mene*** and
apparently EK do not understand the concept even if any intelligent 10
year old could.


JE:-
Discussion creased after Dr O'Hara wrongly claimed that Edser had the
god like power of halting random processes, e.g. genetic drift within an
experiment that Edser had outlined to sbe reader's to test TDF to
refutation. Apparently Edser is not allowed to reasonably conclude that
such an enormous error must bring into question O'Hara and his
qualifications. The topic that was under discussion at the time was
Hamilton's Rule which to this very day remains the only rationale
employed within evolutionary theory to allow organism fitness altruism
to evolve within nature. The rule employs a critical diagnostic sign of
c. It is claimed by Neo Darwinists that when the sign of c within the
rule is positive altruism can validly be assumed but when it is negative
mutualism can be. Apparently Edser is not allowed to argue that
Hamilton's Rule remains just a 100% relative proposition where in all
such propositions cause and effect are invisibly reversible. This being
the case, if you multiply the rule by -1 you simply end up with a mirror
image of it which remains mathematically equal to the rule, i.e. equal
in magnitude to the original rule but not identical. The mirror image of
the rule changes the diagnostic sign of c from positive to negative
proving that the rule only has a zero ability to diagnose mutualism,
i.e. the rule can only validly speculate about two relatively opposing
conditions: altruism and selfishness where a negative sign of c can only
be diagnostic for selfishness and not mutualism within the Rule.
Apparently it remains "nonsense" for Edser to continue to argue that
organism fitness altruism can only be diagnosed when the total fitness
of the actor is actually included and not just artificially deleted from
within the rule even after O'Hara freely admitted within an answer he
gave to a question Edser asked:

--------------quote----------------------
JE:-
What is the difference between
a reduced positive c and a negative c?
If c was an abolute measure of fitness
then yes, a real difference exists. However
c is only a relative fitness cost and not
an absolute fitness cost, so what is the
difference?

BOH:-

As far as the rule is concerned, none.

----------- end quote --------------------

Edser requested O'Hara, Felsenstein, NAS, Jim Mene*** and any others who
are interested in this discussion to comment but they all refused to do
so.

Edser quite unreasonably commented to O'Hara that since O'Hara likes a
stiff drink to drown his many sorrows, to illustrate what Edser is
arguing, why doesn't O'Hara request his favourite barman to pour O'Hara
-1 nip of whisky? Edser was not allowed to argue that in order for -1
nip of whisky to be poured by the barman 1 nip of whisky has to be
poured from the glass into the bottle, i.e. the donar now becomes the
recipient when then sign of c is reversed within Hamilton's Rule.


Apparently Edser is not allowed to conclude that due to a total lack of
intelligent comment on what Edser had proposed: that the total fitness
(TDF) of the actor must to be included within Hamilton's Rule to be able
to diagnose mutualism (which Edser stupidly continues to argue is the
only mechanism that actually operates in nature) TDF is being
continually evaded.

Much later Dr Wirt Atmir, a well respected researcher in the private
sector commented:
------------ start quote ----------------------------

------------------- end quote -----------------------

Again, not a single comment was made by O'Hara, Felsenstein, NAS, Jim
Mene***, EK or anybody else except Edser. But of course, it was just
"nonsense" for Edser to claim that a rational critique of Hamilton's
Rule was being evaded simply because Dr Wirt Atmir's unambiguous comment
was ignored by all of them.

Again Edser is simply not allowed to point out that relatedness within
Hamilton's Rule is actually r^e and not just r as it was assumed by
Hamilton et al within a minimally valid (non oversimplified) model
because the model is actually applied to forms that have more than just
the one chromosome, e.g. the Isoptera (termites) and Hymenoptera (ants
and bees) to which the rule was and remains, classically applied within
the science of biology. Edser's argument that since all gene fitnesses
are empirically epistatic in nature a minimally valid model requires two
alleles at two loci on two different chromosomes to code for any trait
as a valid simplification was just ignored. The Neo Darwinists were
allowed to ignore Edser's argument that in this case e=2 minimally and
not just 1 so e cannot be deleted as Hamilton et el deleted it. In this
situation the cost of proxy reproduced compared to normal reproduction
minimally doubles. The so called professionals that post were also
allowed to just ignore the common Neo Darwinistic error which Edser
pointed out time and time again, of confusing Haldane's Pub Rule with
Hamilton's Rule. Edser fruitlessly pointed out that when this becomes
corrected (Hamilton's rule donates to the offspring of the recipients
and not their parents but Haldane's Pub Rule donates to the parents,
i.e. Hamilton's recipient is one more generation removed compared to
Haldane's) only allowing a minimal r = 0.25 and not the commonly mooted
0.5 the minimal cost of one proxy substitution blows out to a minimum of
16 and not just the 2 normal reproductions forgone. Edser's conclusion
was simply ignored: the rule becomes inoperable simply because proxy
reproduction becomes too expensive within a minimally simplified model:
r=0.25 (maximally) e=2 (minimally) then r^e = 0.25^2 =0.0625. where:
1/0.0625 = 16.


JE:-
It was always totally outrageous for Edser to have the temerity to argue
that mathematics does not discriminate between intersecting and nested
sets but evolutionary theory must always do so when these represent sets
of fitness. Of course, Edser was always quite wrong to argue that
intersecting sets of fitness remain reversible but nested sets of
fitness are not. Edser's simple illustration of selecting books of
stamps that any ten year old could understand was very obviously
unacceptable to people with PhD's. Edser argument that two sets of three
stamps is not selected for in the same way as three books of two stamps,
i.e. a nested set of 2 in 3 is not selected in the same way as a nested
set of 3 in 2. This outrageous argument should never have been allowed
because 2*3= 6 and 3*2= 6 even when two books of three stamps is less
fit than three books of two stamps by one whole book because only the
book level can be selected firstly where TOTAL fitness is the sum of the
books and not the sum of the stamps nested within the books.

The issue of TDF is being absolutely evaded within Neo Darwinistic
discussion at all levels of discussion even if TDF remains the ONLY
EMPIRICAL FITNESS THAT EXISTS WITHIN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105

edser@tpg.com.au


You should take a look at the long thread a few years back

I am

perplexed in peoria

I commented. Extensively. To be sure, my comments did not satisfy
you. I might mention that as another annoying practice of yours.
It is the practice that initiated this thread. When you are not
happy with what someone says, you claim that they said nothing at
all.