Congratulations to our resident theoretical biologist of high renown, Joe Felsenstein, on his presentation, yesterday, of the 37th Fisher Memorial Lecture. [ETA: I’ll post a separate announcement of the video, when it is released.] Following are the details provided by the Fisher Memorial Trust (with a link added by me).
Title: Is there a more fundamental theorem of natural selection?
Abstract. R.A. Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection has intrigued evolutionary biologists, who wondered whether it could be the basis of a general maximum principle for mean fitness of the population. Subsequent work by Warren Ewens, Anthony Edwards, and George Price showed that a reasonable version of the FTNS is true, but only if the quantity being increased by natural selection is not the mean fitness of the population but a more indirectly defined quantity. That leaves us in an unsatisfactory state. In spite of Fisher’s assertion that the theorem “hold[s] the supreme position among the biological sciences”, the Fundamental Theorem is, alas, not-so-fundamental. There is also the problem that the additive genetic variances involved do not change in an easily predictable way. Nevertheless, the FTNS is an early, and imaginative, attempt at formulating macro-scale laws from population-genetic principles. I will not attempt to revive the FTNS, but instead am trying to extend a 1978 model of mine, put forth in what may be my least-cited paper. This attempts to make a “toy” model of an evolving population in which we can bookkeep energy flows through an evolving population, and derive a long-term prediction for change of the energy content of the system. It may be possible to connect these predictions to the rate of increase of the adaptive information (the “specified information”) embodied in the genetic information in the organisms. The models are somewhat absurdly oversimple, but I argue that models like this at least can give us some results, which decades of more handwavy papers on the general connection between evolution, entropy, and information have not.
How long was Joe speculating for?
Nevertheless, the FTNS is an early, and imaginative, attempt at formulating macro-scale laws from population-genetic principles. I will not attempt to revive the FTNS, but instead am trying to extend a 1978 model of mine, put forth in what may be my least-cited paper
Make sure you include at least one piece of evidence into your speculations… It was a joke…I know you won’t … Just like Joe… He feels more comfortable speculating indoors and he lets the real scientists like Venter or Loennig do the experimental work… Then he tells them that they are wrong… lol
Yeah, real scientists like John Sanford get down and dirty with the data, e.g., fitting an exponential curve to the ages at death of various figures in the Bible, including Jesus. It is a scientific fact that the End Time is nigh, if only due to genetic entropy.
ETA: See the fitted curve in the video John Sanford on Genomic Entropy.
Looking forward to the video!
Who’s John Sanford?
Are you looking for excuses already, Tom? Nice… 😉 I look forward to those because they motivate me to do research… I love it!
Why? Because its content is going to be what you want to hear?
Has it ever occurred to you that someone might want to hear some talk because they want to know what it’s about? Has it ever occurred to you that some people might have honest curiosity?
Not everybody thinks the way you think J.
The culture war would be lost without the defense mechanism of projection.
“The birds of feather flock together”
Don’t you have some bible-code numerology gibberish you could be doing?
Tell us more about your “research”, so we can compare its quality to that of Joe’s.
Re: J-Mac’s comments: those make (about) 153.
(That count explained here).
Ellipses as fingerprints! 🙂
John Sanford is a Young Earth Creationist who is also one of the most accomplished Applied Geneticists in history. Former Cornell professor of almost 35 years (25 as resarch professor, 10 as a courtesy associate professor) and famous inventor that was honored in the Smithsonian National Museum of American History for his invention of the Gene Gun.
Haha, I clocked him as soon as I clapped eyes on him here. But the latest in a series of guises at Sandwalk, too.
I must be the only one in the world using ellipses… cool 😉
Thanks Sal! I think I read something about him before
I forgot the ellipses …….sarry………
Don’t forget, J-Mac:
I just read this abstract and not the 78 paper.
Indeed Fisher stating a theory holds SUPREME POSITION in biology AND BEING said to be wrong now is EXACTLY what creationists say about evolutionist claims of evolution for biology origins and processes.
Just wanted to point that out.
Energy flow!! Hmmm.
What is a energy flow in biology? Whence the energy? Is tghis admitting old time evolutionism does not provide a energy mechanism?
A creationist can agree with energy flow if its within boundaries of genes.
Energy flows seems to me to be a new idea not now in the literature on evolution processes.
So its a aggresive intellectual move.
Is it admitting MORE is needed to explain “evolution’ processes to explain biological complexity and diversity??
That is hilarious! We and other animals get our energy by eating animals and plants. Now where do plants get their energy from? Hmm, I’m sure that in school I heard something about that. They must get it somewhere …
Well, I guess I’m stumped. We evolutionists have no way to account for that, which is a major problem.
In the meantime, excuse me, while I put on some sunscreen cream.
Here’s the part I liked:
WTF is he even thinking?
And fresh off the press in the PEER-REVIEWED Journal of Mathematical Biology from the Evolutionary Informatics Lab Bill Basener (EIL) and John Sanford (Cornell) published their correction of Fisher’s fundamental theorem to really make it more fundamental.
I was the one who passed on the reference to Bill Basener and John Sanford regarding Joe Felsenstein’s work on Muller’s ratchet.
The reference appears in their paper.
See Joe, I try to make sure you get credit when credit is due. 🙂
And World Magazine weighs in in Basener and Sanford’s correction to Fisher’s Not-so-fundamenal Fundamental theorem of Natural selection.
Natural selection thingy…?
Out of 120,000 fertilized eggs of the green frog only two individuals survive. Are we to conclude that these two frogs out of 120,000 were selected by nature because they were the fittest ones; or rather — as Cuenot said — that natural selection is nothing but blind mortality which selects nothing at all?
what do ya think?
I wanted to get in contact with you, and i know this isnt the right place for that. But i wanted to see if i can get into Rationalskeptisim and i cant get into contact with other mods. May you please contact them.
Hey Tom, can you answer my Biological question? What evidence is there for Random mutations and Natural Selection to be able to create new anatomical features to the body plan? Creationists ask me all the time and me being science illiterate just doesnt have an answer.
Such extreme science illiteracy as yours is irremediable in anyone beyond the college years. When dealing with creationists 20 or less years of age, you should try to persuade them that their biology teachers are not blinded by sin, and are in fact much more reliable sources of information on science than are their preachers. As for the older ones, fuck ’em and feed ’em fish heads.
Actually the Muller Ratchet thingy which when properly extended shows what actually happens naturally is that things evolve by losing function not by gaining it contrary to Darwin’s vision.
John Sanford’s creationist arguments have been characterized as an extension of Muller’s Ratchet.
From Creation Wiki:
So, ironically, even though Joe Felsenstein is not a creationist, his works are revered by creationists like me and John Sanford.
And providentially, right when a creationists got their paper PEER-REVIEWED criticizing Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection, Joe Felsenstein also comes out says Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection isn’t so Fundamental after all.
I pointed out the problems with Fisher’s Theorem almost a decade ago at UD:
So, I said Fisher was wrong, John Sanford said Fisher was wrong, and now Joe Felsenstein says Fisher was wrong. Great minds think alike. 🙂
There is none… but this fact is not going to persuade anybody who only hears what he wants to hear…
The loss of function is nothing new…breaking genes… How is that evolution? Adaptation… maybe in some very special circumstances…
Have you ever looked into the law of recurrent variation? This proves that unless Darwinists come up with a new mechanism, they are dead meat… People like Joe F can speculate all they want… We are talking experimental evidence of tens of thousands of mutagenesis experiments that produce the same or similar phenotypes… nothing new… no new species… not even a promise of new category…
If it’s not fundamental, what is?
Sal’s Fundamental Conjecture:
“If there is a design, there must be designer.”
Now of course, strictly speaking, ID theory doesn’t specify who the Intelligent Designer is. YEC, like myself assert the Intelligent Designer is Jesus Christ.
Now, Family Guy, in this 30-second video provides his idea of who the designer is.
I have no doubt that you, Joe and John have great minds… I actually like Joe, even though I disagree with him often… There is still hope for him…
BTW: Have you ever come across a theory of quantum mutations?
Yes, but I’m not persuaded it works, even though I think God uses Quantum Mechanics, but not in the way outlined in this book:
My criticism of the book deals with the amount of future effect that is measured to affect the past. Experimental tests of Wheeler’s double slit delayed choice experiment only worked a few nano-seconds into the past. I’m not aware of formal quantum experiments that have longer time frames.
Granted you cited Hammerhoff’s article which showed lab experiments where the future had an effect 4 seconds into the past. I’m not familiar enough with the mechanics of how well future events can effect the past, although Wheeler (who should have won a Nobel Prize) suggests a future event can effect a past event as far back as the entire age of the universe!
Oddly, the question you pose is relevant to quantum computing.
Thank you, Salvador. What a lede!
I started laughing when I got halfway through this one sentence, and I’m still laughing. May the author, Julie Borg, live in infamy as a Pinocchio for God, even as she stores up riches in Heaven.
By the way, Mendel was midway through his experiments when Darwin published Origin. There’s also proof that David Coppedge never had the right stuff to work at NASA:
Salvador, I hope you’ll break ranks with the Creationist Brigade, just for a moment, and acknowledge that this is very silly stuff.
I there has been some login issues over there which has persisted since april 2017. There is a server issue as far as I can gather. Administrators are saying it requires the forum moved to a new server by the owner of the forum, which is an issue for reasons I don’t understand myself.
You’re welcome, Tom.
Ok, Julie Borg shouldn’t have said “for more than a century”. That was very silly stuff on her part.
In fact, that was very astute of you to notice that error by the Borg Collective. God has blessed you with an incredible mind.
There, are you happy now. 🙂
I understand. I really wished to ask a few questions that i have been questioning. Anyway thankyou.
Read (the developmental biologist) Sean B Carroll’s book Endless Forms Most Beautiful.
You can use private messages on this forum.
I give up.
I think Bob is referring to quantum mechanics… unknowingly… lol
I dont have permission apparently.
That’s odd. Can you post in the moderation issues thread?
The book is taking about quantum evolution. I’m talking restrictions on mutation via quantum coherence and such:
Necessity of quantum coherence to account for the spectrum of time-dependent mutations exhibited by bacteriophage T4.
This is a totally different ball game…. It can go as far as taking Einstein’ theory of relatively down or… time does matter or is an illusion on subatomic level…
Well it was a energy flow within the mechanism for evolution that was introduced in the idea.
I understand we(plants/creatures) get SOMETHING from eating/etc.
I don’t think if energy is the scientific word.
This substance/energy supplier is very personal and not affecting a population!
I don’t understand the Energy thing thats being suggested is moving through a population to be the origin , helping, of evolutionary innovation in same population.
Why was the energy idea missed so far? Not even suspected?
What is the scientific name for this energy flow!
Thats what i don’t understand at all.
Food energy things are divided up just as much as atoms are as i understand.
Not saying your wrong.
A creationist welcomes OTHER mechanisms for biological change.
I think its just genes though. Genes with energy is fine but what is the energy THING.?!
The thinking is that all biological change must be within the genes.
So I was not understanding what the ENERGY thing is thats entering the genes.
I understand there are nreakdowns of “food/drink” that are the origin for life/energy.
yet it was suggested this energy was moving through populations as if a single ELEMENT.
Yeah thats it.
What is the energy element??!!
What is the name.
Why is it acting funny in populations to be seen as a relevant evolutionary triggger.
Not opposing but not understanding.
Hi! First time posting here! I see a number of familiar faces.
I actually had a couple questions about the Basener and Sanford paper. I readily admit that the math exceeds my expertise. However, I wonder about the assumptions that the calculations are based on. They arbitrarily chose a ratio of deleterious to beneficial mutations of 1000:1, which they say is based on the literature. However, when you check the citations on which they based this number, they are all to chapters that Sanford himself wrote in the creationist book “Biological Information: New Perspectives.” That is suspicious enough. But my main concern is that it is not clear to me that they accounted for the fact that the large majority of mutations will be neutral or nearly-neutral in terms of selection. If that’s the case, then they have committed the same error of which they accuse Fisher: Using a contrived model that has no relation to what actually occurs in reality. Is that the case?