Re: Epistemologically False Definitions of Evolution.

>>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. 

BOH:-
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.

JE:-
Do you understand the difference between a random pattern
and a random process?

I did not say that random patterns could never be observed,
I simply said that all observed (verified) random patterns can
be assumed to be produced from *EITHER* a random OR non random 
process; no exceptions. The observation on a random pattern 
is *NOT* definitive for a random process, alone, causing it. Thus 
the assumption of a random process (not a random pattern!) can be 
refuted but it cannot be verified, ever. This is the reason why 
random observations are simply thrown out as inconclusive within 
the sciences. Statistics was invented to separate random
patterns (not random processes!) from non random patterns.
Unless you can show an observation is non random it cannot be
used as a valid verification/refutation of any view so it is
utterly useless. Thus, it is thrown out.  

While it is OK to assume a random sub process caused
a random sub pattern within a sub part of a testable theory,
e.g. assume only a random process as causative to variation within
evolutionary theory, it is not OK to assume that evolution
itself can be validly caused by just a random process, alone, 
as evolution by genetic drift, incorrectly assumes. This is because
the testability of evolution is NOT destroyed if variation
is assumed to be caused by only a random process but it
is if evolution is so assumed. Assuming
that meiosis is just a random process within a non
random theory of evolution does not destroy
the testability of Darwinian evolution by natural selection
because Darwinian theory remains refuted if absolute Darwinian
fitness is _selected_ to _decrease_ within nature. Meiosis has since 
been refuted as just a random process because of the observation 
of meiotic drive genes within nature. However, every biologist
has known for years that meiosis is not a random process, it is a non
random process that mostly, only produced random patterns. A simple
of inspection of cell division is enough to refute the proposition
that meiotic machinery is not just a random collection of causative
elements. 


BOH:-
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.

JE:-
Typically, you confuse a random 
pattern with a random process. While
the refutation and verification of either
a random or non random pattern is possible,
it is not possible to verify that only a random 
process caused any verified random pattern, ever.

Best Wishes,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

[EMAIL PROTECTED]