 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Bio Evolution Forum » How can this be tested?... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Tom Hendricks... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"The frequent objection to reductionist thinking is that many
important biological entities - cells, individuals, populations,
ecological communities - are organized at levels above that of
molecules, such that knowledge of molecules alone does not explain the
properties of the levels above." Sean B. Carroll
I have suggested that there are real insights to looking at life as a
catabolic / anabolic division. But unlike molecular level biology, it
is hard to test. Would anyone have any ideas how it could be tested?
Summary
1. Catabolic and anabolic divisions are often separate, work
separately and evolve separately.
2. They evolve at different rates to different selection pressures.
3. Some species may have stronger catabolic processes than anabolic
processes.
4. Some biomes may have overall heavier catabolic / anabolic processes
due to the abundant availability of energy, nutrients, water, etc.
5. A change in one side in some instances may spur the other side to
change to match it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Edser... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom Hendricks <tom-hendricks at (no spam) att.net> wrote:-
[quote:bcdd502e3d]"The frequent objection to reductionist thinking is that many
important biological entities - cells, individuals, populations,
ecological communities - are organized at levels above that of
molecules, such that knowledge of molecules alone does not explain
the properties of the levels above." Sean B. Carroll
[/quote:bcdd502e3d]
JE:-
Tom,
The BIG problem with the above statement is that it does not
discriminate between additive and non additive fitness units. These
end up critically _contradicting_ each other so you cannot allow both as
equalities within the same theory. For example, a "population" is
strictly reserved within evolutionary theory to mean any additive in
fitness unit. A population cannot be selected as a single unit because
selection always operates between it's additive parts _before_ the group
as a whole, no exceptions. IOW the group selection of an additive in
fitness unit was and remains, an empirical impossibility. OTOH, an
individual represents a non additive in fitness collection of cell
fitnesses so that the selection of one entire non additive in fitness
unit (which is defined to be an individual) can occur.
Without the incredibly basic biological population/individual dichotomy
predicated on Darwinian fitness, a _testable_ evolutionary theory and
even a science of biology, remains an impossibility. This is because
additive in fitness populations evolve but only because non additive in
fitness Darwinian units of selection (single fertile forms) can alone be
selected. IOW, the reverse remains excluded as a critical
falsification. If each Darwinian individual becomes allowed to
constitute an additive in fitness population of genes, as remains the
case using Hamilton' oversimplified Neo Darwinian model (which alone can
allow poly-centric Neo Darwinism and therefore Dawkins selfish geneism
which in turn allows an altruistic fertile organism fitness) then
evolutionary theory becomes reduced to just a meaningless, non
predicated tautology (an empty circular argument). Removing the critical
individual/population dichotomy reduces evolutionary theory to something
no better than Herbert Spencer's "survival of the fittest" self
referential argument in which the fitter survive but only because those
that survive remain fitter (IOW, subject and predicate are reversible).
Populations have to remain evolveable _but not selectable_ and the
individuals which constitute one population selectable _but not
evolveable_ otherwise evolutionary theory becomes allowed to contradict
itself reducing itself to _non testable_. The most import point to note
is that this does not matter to mathematics. IOW, a self contradictory
mathematical model remains absolutely mathematically valid. Note that
the only possible way that the Darwinian fertile individual can be
reduced to a population of individually selectable genes which can force
that individual to reduce it's own fitness is via the artificial
deletion of all genetic epistasis (any non additive gene relationship).
This includes ALL genomic gene fitnesses i.e. gene fitnesses relative to
each other within the one, same Darwinian unit of selection (fertile form).
Because genes can individually separate at meiosis does NOT mean that
they can be validly regarded as fitness independent reducing the
Darwinian unit of selection to just a contradictory evolveable
population. Also, because epistatic gene fitnesses can be torn apart by
meiosis does NOT mean that they cannot possibly survive to be selected
in the next generation.
[quote:bcdd502e3d]I have suggested that there are real insights to looking at life as a
catabolic / anabolic division. But unlike molecular level biology,
it is hard to test. Would anyone have any ideas how it could be
tested?
Summary 1. Catabolic and anabolic divisions are often separate, work
separately and evolve separately. 2. They evolve at different rates
to different selection pressures. 3. Some species may have stronger
catabolic processes than anabolic processes. 4. Some biomes may have
overall heavier catabolic / anabolic processes due to the abundant
availability of energy, nutrients, water, etc. 5. A change in one
side in some instances may spur the other side to change to match it.
JE:-[/quote:bcdd502e3d]
Catabolic and anabolic process were and remain empirically fitness
dependent. IOW empirically, they are NOT fitness independent processes.
Like the chicken and the egg conundrum, both have to be selected
simultaneously. While it is entirely possible to build an oversimplified
model of either acting independently, such a model is NOT testable
because it remains an empirical contradiction. I am not claiming that
such a model is never useful, I am claiming that given the sad Neo
Darwinian history, the temptation to misuse it will become overpowering...
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser at (no spam) ozemail.com.au
' |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Hendricks... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:b6ca88a962]JE:-
Catabolic and anabolic process were and remain empirically fitness
dependent. IOW empirically, they are NOT fitness independent processes.
Like the chicken and the egg conundrum, both have to be selected
simultaneously.
[/quote:b6ca88a962]
No they don't. My many many posts make a clear argument that
they are separate in most cases. They have to be.
Tom |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Edser... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom Hendricks <tom-hendricks at (no spam) att.net> wrote:-
[quote]JE:-
Catabolic and anabolic process were and remain empirically fitness
dependent. IOW empirically, they are NOT fitness independent processes.
Like the chicken and the egg conundrum, both have to be selected
simultaneously.
No they don't. My many many posts make a clear argument that
they are separate in most cases. They have to be.
[/quote]
JE:-
Tom,
You did ask how your _evolutionary theory use_ of anabolic and catabolic
pathways could be tested. IOW, not how to test if they remained separate
physiological processes within the same body. What you are really
asking is this: how can _one pathway be selected independent of the
other_. The simple answer: they cannot. Empirically, both pathways
remain 100% dependently selectable via the one, same Darwinian unit of
selection providing just the one, finite, Total Darwinian Fitness.
It should be _biologically_ evident that fitness at the fertile organism
level absolutely requires both pathways to work together i.e. they
cannot be proposed to compete against each other in the Darwinian sense
because their respective fitnesses remain epistatic (non additive). If
you want to create a non empirically based model, i.e. one which will
allow each pathway to remain independently selectable then both pathways
will now require an additive fitness (which they do not have). IOW, the
measured fitness of the entire metabolic system within one fertile form
must become oversimplified to just the addition of the fitness of the
anabolic and catabolic processes within each. Such a model may indeed,
be useful. However, it was and remains an inexcusable misuse of
Darwinian theory to propose that, only because these fitnesses can be
modeled to be independent _via a critical oversimplification_, SUCH A
MODEL CAN VALIDLY BE PROPOSED AS A THEORY, i.e. replace the theory from
which it was oversimplified. Obviously it cannot. Such a model will
never be testable because it was and remains just an uncorrected
tautology of mathematics (just 100% self referential). IOW, an
oversimplification of the non tautological and falsifiable Darwinian
theory. In short: employing such a model in this way can only present a
misuse of it.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser at (no spam) ozemail.com.au
' |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Hendricks... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 19, 11:53=A0pm, John Edser <ed... at (no spam) ozemail.com.au> wrote:
[quote]=A0 Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:-
JE:-
Catabolic and anabolic process were and remain empirically fitness
dependent. IOW empirically, they are NOT fitness independent processes=
...
Like the chicken and the egg conundrum, both have to be selected
simultaneously.
No they don't. My many many posts make a clear argument that
they are separate in most cases. They have to be.
JE:-
Tom,
You did ask how your _evolutionary theory use_ of anabolic and catabolic
pathways could be tested. IOW, not how to test if they remained separate
physiological processes =A0within the same body. What you are really
asking is this: how can _one pathway be =A0selected independent of the
other_. The simple answer: they cannot. Empirically, both pathways
remain 100% dependently selectable via the one, same Darwinian unit of
selection providing just the one, finite, Total Darwinian Fitness.
It should be _biologically_ evident that fitness at the fertile organism
level absolutely requires both pathways to work together i.e. they
cannot be proposed to compete against each other in the Darwinian sense
because their respective fitnesses remain epistatic (non additive). If
you want to create a non empirically based model, i.e. one which will
allow each pathway to remain independently selectable then both pathways
will now require an additive fitness (which they do not have). IOW, the
measured fitness of the =A0entire metabolic system within one fertile for=
m
must become oversimplified to just the addition of the fitness of the
anabolic and catabolic processes within each. Such a model may indeed,
be useful. However, it was and =A0remains an inexcusable misuse of
Darwinian theory to propose that, only because these fitnesses can be
modeled to be independent _via a critical oversimplification_, SUCH A
MODEL CAN VALIDLY BE PROPOSED AS A THEORY, i.e. replace the theory from
which it was oversimplified. Obviously it cannot. Such a model will
never be testable because it was and remains just an uncorrected
tautology of mathematics (just 100% self referential). IOW, an
oversimplification of the non tautological and falsifiable Darwinian
theory. In short: employing such a model in this way can only present a
misuse of it.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
ed... at (no spam) ozemail.com.au
'
[/quote]
They have to be selected separately - see new post.
Proving the idea wrong. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Edser... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom Hendricks <tom-hendricks at (no spam) att.net> wrote:-
JE:-
[quote]Tom,
You did ask how your _evolutionary theory use_ of anabolic and catabolic
pathways could be tested. IOW, not how to test if they remained separate
physiological processes =A0within the same body. What you are really
asking is this: how can _one pathway be =A0selected independent of the
other_. The simple answer: they cannot. Empirically, both pathways
remain 100% dependently selectable via the one, same Darwinian unit of
selection providing just the one, finite, Total Darwinian Fitness.
It should be _biologically_ evident that fitness at the fertile organism
level absolutely requires both pathways to work together i.e. they
cannot be proposed to compete against each other in the Darwinian sense
because their respective fitnesses remain epistatic (non additive). If
you want to create a non empirically based model, i.e. one which will
allow each pathway to remain independently selectable then both pathways
will now require an additive fitness (which they do not have). IOW, the
measured fitness of the =A0entire metabolic system within one fertile for=
m
must become oversimplified to just the addition of the fitness of the
anabolic and catabolic processes within each. Such a model may indeed,
be useful. However, it was and =A0remains an inexcusable misuse of
Darwinian theory to propose that, only because these fitnesses can be
modeled to be independent _via a critical oversimplification_, SUCH A
MODEL CAN VALIDLY BE PROPOSED AS A THEORY, i.e. replace the theory from
which it was oversimplified. Obviously it cannot. Such a model will
never be testable because it was and remains just an uncorrected
tautology of mathematics (just 100% self referential). IOW, an
oversimplification of the non tautological and falsifiable Darwinian
theory. In short: employing such a model in this way can only present a
misuse of it.
They have to be selected separately - see new post.
Proving the idea wrong.
[/quote]
JE:-
Tom, you proved nothing of the sort. All you did was evade the
falsifiable arguments that I provided.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent researcher
edser at (no spam) ozemail.com.au |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:02 am
|
|