| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Bio Evolution Forum » Popper and Darwinism...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| John W Edser... |
 Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 7:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Darwinism has always remained falsifiable. Popper confused Herbert
Spencer's infamous "survival of the fittest" tautology with Darwin and
Wallace's non tautologous "natural selection". Popper can hardly be
blamed because even a Neo Darwinist of the stature of W.D. Hamilton who
was contemporary with Popper (it was Hamilton who extended Haldane's
inclusive fitness concept which became popularized as Dawkins' selfish
genes) also confused the two. I cannot think of anybody who did more
damage to Darwinism than the philosopher Herbert Spencer.
It is Neo Darwinism which cannot be falsified. Darwinism represents the
only bona fide theory of evolution that we have. OTOH, Neo Darwinism
substitutes Darwinism with just an uncorrected, mathematically based
modeling oversimplification of that theory within which Total Darwinian
Fitness remains deleted. Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF), which represents
_THE critical fitness maximand_ of evolutionary theory, only allows a
single fitness constant per selectee per population providing just a
monocentric falsifiable frame of reference for fitness within
evolutionary theory. TDF: the total number of fertile forms reproduced
per parent per population. OTOH, Neo Darwinism allows a contradictory
polycentric concept of fitness via Hamilton's inclusive fitness because
only the one fitness maximand per selectee per population can be
rationally maintained.
A test to refutation of monocentric Darwinism is the following simple
deduction from that theory: if every TDF is held equal within one
population then no evolution within that population can occur as long as
this is situation is maintained. This is because natural selection is
the default comparison of every TDF per population such that only the
parent/s with the largest TDF can be selected for.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser at (no spam) ozemail.com.au |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ouroboros_Rex... |
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John W Edser wrote:
Quote: Darwinism has always remained falsifiable. Popper confused Herbert
Spencer's infamous "survival of the fittest" tautology with Darwin and
Wallace's non tautologous "natural selection". Popper can hardly be
blamed because even a Neo Darwinist of the stature of W.D. Hamilton
who was contemporary with Popper (it was Hamilton who extended
Haldane's inclusive fitness concept which became popularized as
Dawkins' selfish genes) also confused the two. I cannot think of
anybody who did more damage to Darwinism than the philosopher Herbert
Spencer.
It is Neo Darwinism which cannot be falsified.
On the contrary. If gene sequencing had directly contradicted it, it
would certainly have been falsified. The same could be said about
widespread unexplainable fossil evidence. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John W Edser... |
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ouroboros_Rex" <its at (no spam) casual.com> wrote:-
Quote: JE:-
Darwinism has always remained falsifiable. Popper confused Herbert
Spencer's infamous "survival of the fittest" tautology with Darwin and
Wallace's non tautologous "natural selection". Popper can hardly be
blamed because even a Neo Darwinist of the stature of W.D. Hamilton
who was contemporary with Popper (it was Hamilton who extended
Haldane's inclusive fitness concept which became popularized as
Dawkins' selfish genes) also confused the two. I cannot think of
anybody who did more damage to Darwinism than the philosopher Herbert
Spencer.
It is Neo Darwinism which cannot be falsified.
On the contrary. If gene sequencing had directly contradicted it, it
would certainly have been falsified. The same could be said about
widespread unexplainable fossil evidence.
JE:-
You appear not to understand the critical difference between Darwinism
and Neo Darwinism.
Darwinism represents a mono-centric (just a single unit) theory of
evolution as it was originally provided by Charles Darwin i.e. not the
non falsifiable evolutionary theory provided by Darwin's contemporary
Alfred Russel Wallace who allowed a di-centic theory after he introduced
classical group selection into evolutionary theory for the first time.
Darwinism presents a rational, single and therefore falsifiable fitness
maximand per unit of selection which goes on to provide the fitness
frame of reference for all of evolutionary theory. OTOH, Wallace
irrationally allowed two fitness maximands _for exactly the same
falsifiable unit of selection_ failing to reason that one must
extinguish the other, empirically. Even today, this basic bit of
reasoning is not appreciated.
Neo Darwinism presents potentially useful but sadly, _hopelessly
misused_, simplified/oversimplified models of Darwinism which were and
remain required to enable Mendel's gene theory to be joined to Darwinian
evolutionary theory. A model is simply not a theory of anything, it is
just a simplification/oversimplification of some bona fide theory. The
big problem with Neo Darwinian modeling is that genetic epistasis
(including critical gene fitness epistasis) was and remains deleted in
order to manufacture a much more easily understandable Neo Darwinian
model. The net effect of this was to allow polycentric evolutionary
theories via the deletion/non recognition of TDF (Total Darwinian
Fitness defined as: the total number of strictly fertile forms
reproduced per parent per population). This provided invalid theories
within which the rational, single, Darwinian falsifiable unit of
selection concept became broken down into just fictional, independent
units of selection i.e. dependent body parts now became magically
transformed into independent units of selection i.e. _units of selection
in their own right_. This allowed each part to have their own
MATHEMATICALLY IMAGINED fitness maximand, e.g. Hamilton's inclusive
fitness model within which all these contesting maximands remain
unresolved. While Hamilton's non falsifiable model can be useful (mostly
to demonstrate what is NOT happening within nature)it was and remains
grossly misused as a replacement for falsifiable Darwinian theory. When
criticized for this Neo Darwinians simply retire their position to
within an untenable Post Modern epistemology and _delete any requirement
for falsification_. IOW, they simply shoot nature as the only, valid and
impartial umpire condemning the sciences to a pre-Galilean epistemology.
Whenever you oversimplify a theory you delete/change some critical
constant defined or employed (without you even knowing that you have
done so) within that theory. As Galileo pointed out, it is only proposed
constants which provide a critical frame of reference for a theory.
Deleting constants can allow cause and effect to become reversed within
a model of the same theory e.g. Hamilton's Rule which allowed just an
oversimplified model to contradict the parent theory it was
oversimplified from! Mathematics is not a science simply because it has
no constant frame of reference (as was proven by Godel), yet Neo
Darwinians happily go on to reduce falsifiable Darwinism to just non
falsifiable Neo Darwinism via a _gross modeling misuse_ providing self
contradictory polycentric theories. No _rational_ evolutionary theory
can provide more than the one fitness maximand per falsifiable unit of
selection.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser at (no spam) ozemail.com.au
Neo Darwinism |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:15 am
|
|