On Tue, 1 Jul 97 23:03:54 CDT, Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
>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.
>SJ>Not necessarily.
WE>Explain how Walter's point (1) fits, then.
I already have: 1. He was very busy; 2. He had answered your point
in other messages; 3. He expected you to read his book.
>SJ>Walter apparently thought he had answered your
>>questions in his other posts.
WE>Since Walter didn't post anything at the time that addressed my
>questions about computer simulation, and even took Chris Colby
>to task for "bringing up" computer simulation, this doesn't
>seem very plausible to me at all.
Seems "plausible" to me! It seems simply absurd that you did not
bother to read Walter's book. I would not blame him if he was
"ignoring" you.
>SJ>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>Amazing, but true. The only time "weasel" was mentioned by
>Walter appears to have been in the phrase "weasel words of
>evolutionists".
Sorry Wesley. I just cannot believe that no one on "talk.o"
read Walter's Chapter on Haldane's Dilemma in which he discusses
Dawkin's "Weasel" simulation. It is much more likely that you
simply got it wrong.
[...]
>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.
>SJ>I presume Walter means that it was not his main "focus'.
WE>Walter made certain claims publicly, then chose not to support
>them. That's his prerogative. It's mine to continue to point
>out that certain claims were left dangling.
He had "supported" them - in his book!
>SJ>Again
>I presume everyone else understood it was his "The Biotic
>Message" "simulation" that Walter was referring to.
WE>Well, then, perhaps you could explain why no one else offered
>the suggestion that "weasel" was the indicated simulation?
If no one had read Walter's book, then I would "explain" it as
a massive misunderstanding. But I would need a lot of evidence
that all those smart people on t.o. could debate a theory set
out in an author's book, without ever reading the book. It just
sounds too incredible.
[...]
>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.
>SJ>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."
WE>If it isn't programmable, it isn't much of a discussion.
>I will probably do another ILL request sometime along.
Wesley, I worked for two years in an IT Department producing
specifications for Programmers to write software. I did not
know a word of the language they were using (Progress 4GL DBMS),
but I do know from that experience that competent programmers can
write programs from "a discussion "recognizing or quantifying a
`problem'".
[...]
>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.
>SJ>Please explain the difference between "total base pairs"
>and "number of loci".
WE>These concepts are covered in basic genetics textbooks. Try
>Strickberger's "Genetics" or Suzuki et al.'s "Introduction to
>Genetic Analysis".
Interesting. It's OK for you to demand that Walter explain
his book to you without you reading it, and when he doesn't
he is "ignoring" you. But when you make a point and I ask
you to explain it, you tell me to go and read a book!
If you will not explain your crucial point about "total base pairs"
and "number of loci", without referring me to a book, then I have
no alternative to interpret this as an evasion, and I must give the
point by default to Walter.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------