Maybe so, Glenn, but have you ever examined the consequences of say, for
example, Hardy Weinberg for evolution? A colleague of mine at Cal Tech
told me one time that Hardy Weinberg was the death knell of evolutionary
theory. For example when Arthur in his book on the Origin of Body Plans,
wants to show how a mutation can be fixed in a population, he chooses a
dominant mutation to work the math with, even though he admits that the
probability of such a mutation is vanishingly small. Why? Because the
equations dont produce the desired results when he uses the same parameters
in Hardy Weinberg with a recessive mutation. It won't happen, so such
things as founder effect had to be invented to make anything happen. But
for it to happen in the founder population, the appropriate genes have to
be there, and thr probability of that is also calculable, and is the same
order as the pprobability for the fixing of the recessive mutation in the
population. So the math that biologists do have doesn't always help
evolutionary theory.
Art
http://biology.swau.edu