On Tue, 17 Jun 97 13:33:42 CDT, Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
[...]
>WE>I had checked out "The Biotic Message" once before, but I did not
>have it in hand during the talk.origins discussion. If the "weasel"
>simulation is really the one that Walter meant, then that should have
>been dead easy for him to name. I suspect it was the call for a
>definite and programmable criterion for detection of a "problem"
>due to Haldane's dilemma that caused the silence.
>SJ>I would have thought it would be fairly obvious that "the `weasel'
>simulation is really the one that Walter meant" since it is the one
>that appears in his "Haldane's Dilemma" chapter.
WE>If I had had his book in hand, probably so.
OK. I found it difficult to believe that you neither asked or Walter
mentioned that the "simulation" came from the "`Haldane's Dilemma'
chapter' of his book, "The Biotic Message". But it appears from the
following that he did not have the time to respond to you.
>WE>I counted up to eight times that I asked for the name of the
>simulation and other associated support, and then presented
>it a few more times that I didn't count. The only response
>from Walter was "Hold your horses."
>SJ>Presumably Walter thought you meant something over and above what he
>wrote in "The Biotic Message"?
WE>Well, according to this reply, he was just ignoring me.
Not necessarily. Walter apparently thought he had answered your
questions in his other posts. Again, I find it difficult to believe
in Walter's "over a hundred page" on "talk.o" he did not mention that
the "simulation" came from "The Biotic Message".
WE>[Walter's recall snipped]
>WR>Many questions fly on talk.origins. My session did not get to
>Elsberry's particular one for several reasons: (1) His question
>was off topic, and on talk.o maintaining a focus is half your
>task. I was discussing the theoretical genetic issues of
>Haldane's Dilemma, but computer simulations raise a new range
>of issues. Even the theoretical issues bifurcate in lots of
>directions, and I was busy posting, night and day, to address
>those and keep the discussion focused. My talk.origins
>material ran for over a hundred pages. Elsberry has nothing to
>complain about.
WE>The original set of claims which Walter made concerning Haldane's
>dilemma specifically brought up computer simulation as an
>indicator that the problem was "robust and firm". I fail to see
>how a claim of "off-topic" discussion can be made when Walter
>himself introduced the topic.
I presume Walter means that it was not his main "focus'. Again I
presume everyone else understood it was his "The Biotic Message"
"simulation" that Walter was referring to.
>WRM>4) The problem is robust and firm -- the phenomenon can even be
>demonstrated in computer simulations, such as the same one Dawkins
>used in his book _The Blind Watchmaker_.
[...]
>WRM>Haldane's Dilemma is fundamentally simple. Anyone can understand it.
>Anyone with a pencil can calculate it and see. Computer simulations
>clearly demonstrate the problem. So evolutionists cannot claim they
>were unaware.
[...]
WE>My challenge to ReMine...
>
>If Walter doesn't want us to consider those claims to be abandoned,
>he should come across with the following bits of information
>immediately.
>1) The name and reference for at least one of the already
>existing computer simulations that he claimed demonstrated
>Haldane's paradox.
WE>(Walter has now responded with the answer to 1.)
Agreed.
WE>2) The diagnostic means by which one determines that the
>simulation identified in (1) actually does demonstrate
>the problem.
>
>(This is still missing.)
Walter covers this very well in his book (pages 232-236). I suggest
you either buy a copy or try to get it from a public library.
>WR>(2) I will not re-type my book into the internet. I will not
>spoon feed it to each person who has a question. Elsberry knew
>where to get the answer to his question, he simply failed to pursue
>it.
WE>I find this response to be odd, since Walter often told people
>to buy or read his book for answers to questions, but did *not*
>indicate that in response to me. His only response at the
>time was to "hold your horses", with an indication that he would
>eventually get around to making a reply. Such was not
>forthcoming.
This seems to be quibbling. You admit that Walter told others to
"read his book for answers to questions", so I don't see that he
was to tell you personally. You should have first read the book
and then got back to Walter with any further questions, if you
had any.
WE>Does Walter's discussion of computer simulations in "The Biotic
>Message" include a programmable description of recognizing or
>quantifying a "problem" due to Haldane's Dilemma? If so, I'll
>fire up Interlibarary Loan again.
While TBM does not "include a programmable description", he does
have a discussion "recognizing or quantifying a `problem' due to
Haldane's Dilemma". Perhaps you had better "fire up Interlibarary
Loan again."
>WR>(3) My talk.origins session never intended to supply all the
>answers from my book, instead my intention, which I announced,
>was to serve notice about my book and its issues. My posts
>argued sufficiently well to establish them as live issues worthy of
>further consideration. My goal was to raise legitimate interest in
>my book. Since Elsberry continually blustered that he was
>interested, there was nothing further for me to do. The ball was
>entirely in his court.
>WR>In other words, Elsberry's complaining is typical talk.o antics and
>posturing. Anything but deal with my book and the issues it raises.
WE>Walter seems to have forgotten that I offered to do more than
>simply read sources.
I can understand Walter's position. You really should have read
his book first.
WE>[Quote]
>
>Produce the computer simulation that you claimed above
>already exists. Show us how you determine that cost of
>selection is an issue. The programmers on t.o. will then
>try applying the concepts that have been forwarded by Andy
>Peters and Chris Colby. We'll then see whether the
>program shows no change (your claim) or changed behavior
>(Andy and Chris's claim).
>
>[End quote]
>
>[Quote]
>
>*** ReMine's Dilemma ***
>
>This is Remine's Dilemma: To accept his own challenge means
>that he accepts the significant chance of being demonstrated
>to be wrong in a way not easily amenable to simple dismissal,
>as has worked previously. To not accept the challenge means
>that he would be, in effect, abandoning his prior claim that
>the problem of Haldane's paradox was so pervasive that it
>caused difficulties in computer simulations of evolutionary
>processes. From a cost/benefit standpoint, if I were Walter,
>I would quietly ignore the challenge, figuring that the claim
>concerning computer simulation is not such a strong support
>that losing it costs much, whereas pursuing that claim could
>jeopardize the whole argument. Ignoring it also leaves open
>the possibility that some will not recognize that the original
>claim concerning simulation has, in fact, been abandoned.
>Perhaps not surprisingly, this is what Walter has thus far
>done.
>
>[End quote]
Your analysis doesn't hold water. Walter has published his
criticism of Dawkins' simulation in the public domain in his
book and it is up to critics to read his book and either refute
or accept it. I find it difficult to believe that no one on
talk.origins had read the book and then if they could refute
Walter's claims about Dawkins' simulation they wouldn't do
so.
[...]
>WR>2) According to Motoo Kimura's theory of neutral evolution --
>Neutral evolution (during the same time as above) could
>substitute no more than 25,000 *expressed* neutral mutations.
>That amounts to 0.0007 percent of the human genome.
WE>"Extremely interesting from almost every point of view." -- BotR
>
>That's if one uses total base pairs to work the numbers, and it
>definitely does not square with the emphasized "expressed"
>statement. If one works from the number of loci, then Walter's
>number is much too small, since changes in 25,000 loci would
>mean about 1/4th of all loci could be affected, a significant
>amount by any standard. The 1/4th figure does *not* represent
>an upper limit, BTW. Not all mutations are point mutations.
Please explain the difference between "total base pairs"
and "number of loci".
WE>Let's work it out with these assumptions:
>1) 100,000 expressed loci in the human genome
>2) Every mutation is a point mutation
>3) 25,000 point mutations are distributed over the expressed loci
>4) The chance of occurrence in any locus is equiprobable
>
>This short Perl script gives us a numerical approximation to the
>number of loci likely to be affected.
[...]
WE>The average number of loci affected is just over 22,000. That
>means that even taking into account multiple mutations at the
>same locus, over 1/5th of all loci will be likely to have
>changed via neutral mutation, given the stated assumptions.
>
>Some numbers from the program run:
[...]
>WR>4) The phenomena of error catastrophe (from harmful mutations),
>and low substitution rates (of beneficial mutations), show up
>even on computer simulations (if not arbitrarily prevented by
>the programmer), and give support to my claims above.
WE>I'm still willing to try putting Walter's claims about computer
>simulation to the test. Now that I have the name of the
>program, all that's needed is Walter's description of the
>diagnostic function that indicates the presence or severity of
>a problem. Of the two, "severity" would be much better, since
>that would imply a quantification rather than mere
>categorization.
Just simply read Walter's book and refute it, if you can. Otherwise
I (and no doubt others) will assume you are dodging the issue, by
raising another issue as a smokescreen.
As previously agreed, I am sending a copy of this to Walter for
any reply he wishes to make.
Regards.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------