Fisher’s not-so-fundamental theorem

Posted on by

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.

142 thoughts on “Fisher’s not-so-fundamental theorem”

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  4. Tom English:
    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.

    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!

  6. J-Mac: 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.

  8. Entropy: 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 birds of feather flock together”

  9. J-Mac:
    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

    Don’t you have some bible-code numerology gibberish you could be doing?

  13. J-mac,

    Who’s John Sanford?

    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.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo4.html#p1705

    Q. Doctor Sanford, can you tell us a bit about your background and how that qualifies you to testify today?

    A. Okay. I’m glad to be here. My name is John Sanford. Just to explain how I got to be here, Doctor John Calvert asked me to testify for you. And I’m not coming here as an advocate, I’m not here really to write your guidelines for you. But if you have questions for me, I’m happy to answer them. So I– I have not– I’ve not studied all the drafts, but I have simply researched for you, and I’ve taken three days of my life to donate to this discussion. I hope I can answer your questions adequately.

    My background is I have training in the area of plant breeding and plant genetics. My Ph.D. is from the University of Wisconsin. I’ve been a Cornell professor for 25 years. Retired. When I was at Cornell, I did a very diverse range of research. I published on many different topics, had 70 publications in scientific journals, over 25 patents. My main claim to fame is I’m the primary inventor of the GeneGun technology, which has been used extensively in plant genetic engineering. So when the GeneGun technology was developed, I was able– I was very blessed and able to take a lot of revenue from that. It was a very financially-rewarding invention which eventually let me leave Cornell. So right now I’m a courtesy professor at Cornell with an office there, but I’m not on a paid– a paid faculty. And I’m presently in the process of writing books. So that’s my background.

    I– just one more comment in terms of my qualifications to discuss this, is most of my career I’ve been an atheistic evolutionist, later in life I became a theistic evolutionist, and later I became a– a Biblical Christian. And so I’m sure– as the prosecutor will be asking me, I do have a Christian perspective.

    Q. Doctor Sanford, when did you switch from atheism to a Christian world view?

    A. About 20 years ago.

    Q. And–

    MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Excuse me, I’m going to– this is irrelevant to the standards. And I– I don’t think it does any good to get involved in this.

    MR. CALVERT: The rules do not permit this type of interruption.

    MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Well, there’s got to be some relevancy.

    MR. CALVERT: Would you please answer?

    CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: He has the time to allow– to do as he wants to do.

    Q. (BY MR. CALVERT) All right. You may answer the question.

    A. Twenty years.

    Q. Twenty years ago?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And so– and I think you said that you were a theistic evolutionist for a period of time after that. You know, why– why was that?

    A. I had been trained in evolution and everything I had ever thought was in terms of evolution. For me, it was a– as clear as the world around us. It was just uncontestable. But in retrospect, I had not critically assessed much of what I believed. I believed it based upon very little, without critical assessment.

    Q. So would it be fair to say that while you were an atheist, you didn’t find any personal reasons to critically analyze the theory or to challenge it?

    A. Yes. Well, as an atheist, there’s no– there’s no alternative hypothesis because if– if no one– and there’s no designer or creator, then you have to believe that the universe created itself.

    Q. So you– 20 years ago you became a Christian and then at some subsequent time and you– let me ask you this; do you use evolutionary biology in your operational science?

    A. I don’t use it. And when I was an evolutionist, I would have argued that evolutionary theory is critical to being a good scientist. I actually realized that it’s– my best science has been done since that time. I’ve also realized that historically all the founding fathers of science were non-evolutionists and many of them were anti-evolutionists. So I realized that good science is not in any way conditioned upon accepting the evolutionary theory.

    Q. The– is it fair to say then that– well, you– you switched from Christianity– from atheism to Christianity 20 years ago and then there was a period of time where you were a– I think you described a theistic evolutionist; is that correct?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And then during that period of time, did you have any cause or reason to or did you challenge or critically analyze evolutionary theories?

    A. I– I did not generally question the– the documents that I had been taught. They were like foundational beliefs and I did not generally question them.

    Q. And then at some point in time something caused you to begin to question it?

    A. So I had–

    Q. Is that correct?

    A. Yes. I had friends who basically said, have you looked at the other side? And I said, what other side? I honestly had been at Cornell at that point 20 years and I really did not know that there was a– a legitimate position which could contest evolutionary assumptions.

    Q. And so then you began to look at it critically?

    A. I began to look at it critically and for several years I was intrigued by alternative explanations for many different things. And so this was a– a time of great intellectual excitement for me. So looking at alternatives to evolution, I did not find mental– mentally deadening but rather incredibly stimulating. And I basically went back and reassessed everything I had ever knew.

    Q. What– what is the GeneGun?

    A. The GeneGun is a process, an apparatus for delivering DNA into cells and tissues, and it’s been used for genetic engineering of plants and for experimentation in the medical science.

  14. Alan Fox,

    Haha, I clocked him as soon as I clapped eyes on him here. But the latest in a series of guises at Sandwalk, too.

  19. 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??

  20. Robert Byers: 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.

    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.

  21. Here’s the part I liked:

    A creationist can agree with energy flow if its within boundaries of genes.

    WTF is he even thinking?

  22. Tom English:
    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.

    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.

    On Basener and Sanford’s paper falsifying Fisher’s Darwinism theorem: It will be no small thing to make reality matter again

    Peer-Reviewed Science: A “Mathematical Proof of Darwinian Evolution” Is Falsified

    and

    Mathematician and Geneticist Team Up to Correct Fisher’s Theorem

    A recent paper in the Journal of Mathematical Biology (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x) has uncovered major problems with the historically pivotal Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection. That theorem was proven by Ronald Fisher – one the great scientists of the last century. Fisher’s theorem was published in 1930, and was the foundational work that gave rise to neo-Darwinian theory and the field of population genetics.

    Fisher’s theorem was … the foundational work that gave rise to neo-Darwinian theory and the field of population genetics.

    Fisher described his theorem as “fundamental,” because he believed he had discovered a mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution. He described his theorem as equivalent to a universal natural law – on the same level as the second law of thermodynamics. Fisher’s self-proclaimed new law of nature was that populations will always increase in fitness – without limit, as long as there is any genetic variation in the population. Therefore evolution is like gravity – a simple mathematical certainly. Over the years, a vast number of students of biology have been taught this mantra – Fisher’s Theorem proves that evolution is a mathematical certainty.

    The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change – it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.

    In the early 1900s, Darwinian theory was in trouble scientifically. Darwin’s writings were primarily conceptual in nature, containing a great deal of philosophy and a great deal of speculation. Beyond simple observations of nature, Darwin’s books generally lacked genuine science (experimentation, data analysis, the formulation of testable hypotheses). Darwin had no understanding of genetics, and so he had no conception of how traits might be passed from one generation to the next. He only had a very vague notion of what natural selection might actually be acting upon. He simply pictured life as being inherently plastic and malleable, so evolution was inherently fluid and continuous (think Claymation). When Mendel’s genetic discoveries were eventually brought out of the closet, it could be seen that inheritance was largely based upon discrete and stable packets of information. That indicated that life and inheritance were not like Claymation, and that biological change over time was not based upon unlimited plasticity or fluidity. Mendel’s discrete units of information (later called genes), were clearly specific and finite, and so they only enabled specific and limited changes. At that time it was being said; “Mendelism has killed Darwinism”.

  23. BTW,

    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. 🙂

  25. stcordova:
    BTW,

    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.

    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?

  26. Rumraket,

    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.

  27. Tom English,

    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.

    Cheers

  28. Wenlok23: 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.

  29. J-mac:

    Natural selection thingy…?

    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.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muller%27s_ratchet

    In evolutionary genetics, Muller’s ratchet (named after Hermann Joseph Muller, by analogy with a ratchet effect) is a process by which the genomes of an asexual population accumulate deleterious mutations in an irreversible manner.[1][2]
    ….
    the phrase “Muller’s ratchet” was coined by Joe Felsenstein

    John Sanford’s creationist arguments have been characterized as an extension of Muller’s Ratchet.

    From Creation Wiki:
    http://creationwiki.org/Genetic_entropy

    Genetic Entropy is the theory that genetic mutations are accumulating to an eventual extinction of all species. The theory was originally proposed by Joseph Muller in 1932 and named Muller’s Ratchet[1], he imagined it as a means by which selection forced asexual populations to evolve sexual reproduction. The geneticist John C. Sanford has further expanded on the theory in a more realistic framework from the Biblical worldview, and published the work in a book titled Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.[2]

    Results

    Mendelian Inheritance in Man, Reported Genetic Disorders 1966 to 1999. The number of medically reported genetic disorders in 1966 was 1,487. The number reported by 1999 was 11,099. A curve of best fit has an R2 of 0.995. These data are evidence of devolution
    One of the problems of the secular version of the theory is their belief that natural selection weeds out the deleterious mutations and solves the problem. But, natural selection can only select individuals and not mutations and since selection coefficients change over time there is no observable instance of favorable individuals either.[3]

    The rate of deleterious mutations has been determined to be an incredible one per gamete. [4]

    And the rate of known genetic disorders arising is solid confirmation of this fact.[5]

    Biblical Perspective

    Biological decay curve of Biblical Patriarchs
    Main Article: Human longevity
    Given the fact that the bible was written without any previous knowledge of genetics, it is highly unlikely that the ages and dates of the patriarchs given in the Bible would follow a biological decay curve predicted by genetic entropy by chance. Given these facts it is only reasonable that genetic entropy is not only a solid confirmation of genomic decline in which falsifies the central tenet of evolution, but makes clear predictions about the declining age of humanity over time as documented in the bible.[6]

    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:

    Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection: the death sentence for Darwinism

    So, I said Fisher was wrong, John Sanford said Fisher was wrong, and now Joe Felsenstein says Fisher was wrong. Great minds think alike. 🙂

  30. Wenlok23: What evidence is there for Random mutations and Natural Selection to be able to create new anatomical features to the body plan?

    There is none… but this fact is not going to persuade anybody who only hears what he wants to hear…

  31. J-Mac: 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

    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…

  32. stcordova: 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.

    If it’s not fundamental, what is?

  33. J-mac:

    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.

  34. stcordova: So, I said Fisher was wrong, John Sanford said Fisher was wrong, and now Joe Felsenstein says Fisher was wrong. Great minds think alike.

    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?

  35. J-mac:

    BTW: have you ever come across a theory of quantum mutation?

    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:

    Quantum Evolution presents a revolutionary new scientific theory by asking: is there a force of will behind evolution? In his astonishing first book, Johnjoe McFadden shows that there is.

    ‘McFadden’s bold hypothesis that quantum physics plays a key role in the origin and evolution of life looks increasingly plausible. The weird behaviour of matter and information at the quantum level could be just what is needed to explain life’s astonishing properties. If these ideas are right, they will transform our understanding of the relationship between physics and biology.’ PAUL DAVIES

    In this brilliant debut, Johnjoe McFadden puts forward a theory of quantum evolution. He shows how living organisms have the ability to will themselves into action. Indeed, such an ability may be life’s most fundamental attribute. This has radical implications. Evolution may not be random at all, as recent evolutionary theories have taught: rather, cells may, in certain circumstances, be able to choose to mutate particular genes that provide an advantage in the environment in which the cell finds itself. This ‘will’ – described by McFadden as ‘the life force’ – has startling implications. It is at the root of consciousness and free-will and provides a new understanding of the origins of life and the purpose of death.

    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.

  36. stcordova: And World Magazine weighs in in Basener and Sanford’s correction to Fisher’s Not-so-fundamenal Fundamental theorem of Natural selection.

    https://world.wng.org/content/survival_by_design

    Hallelujah!

    Thank you, Salvador. What a lede!

    For more than a century, many scientists accepted Ronald Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection as mathematical proof of survival of the fittest, a cornerstone of Darwinian evolution.

    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.

    Charles Darwin formulated his theory based on simple observations and conjecture before scientists understood genetics. Later, when Gregor Mendel, known as the father of modern genetics, conducted experiments that showed mutations were inherited, many said Mendelism had killed Darwinism. In 1930, Fisher rescued the theory when he devised a mathematical formula that showed natural selection could improve the fitness of a species by selecting desirable gene mutations and deselecting harmful ones.

    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:

    “The new paper seems to have turned Fisher’s theorem upside down, and with it, the entire neo-Darwinian paradigm,” wrote David Coppedge, founder of the Creation Evolution Headlines blog.

    Salvador, I hope you’ll break ranks with the Creationist Brigade, just for a moment, and acknowledge that this is very silly stuff.

  37. Wenlok23:
    Rumraket,

    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.

    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.

  38. Tom English:

    Thank you, Salvador. What a lede!

    You’re welcome, Tom.

    Tom,

    Salvador, I hope you’ll break ranks with the Creationist Brigade, just for a moment, and acknowledge that this is very silly stuff.

    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. 🙂

  40. Wenlok23:
    Tom English,

    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.

    Cheers

    Read (the developmental biologist) Sean B Carroll’s book Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

  42. Robert Byers:

    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.

    Ugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I give up.

  43. stcordova: Ugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I give up.

    I think Bob is referring to quantum mechanics… unknowingly… lol

  46. stcordova: 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:

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01CC8B96Q/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

    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.

    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.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19882244

  47. J-Mac: 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!

    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…

  48. Joe Felsenstein: 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.

    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!
    Hmmm.
    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.?!

  49. keiths:
    Here’s the part I liked:

    WTF is he even thinking?

    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.

  50. stcordova:
    And World Magazine weighs in in Basener and Sanford’s correction to Fisher’s Not-so-fundamenal Fundamental theorem of Natural selection.

    https://world.wng.org/content/survival_by_design

    Hallelujah!

    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?

Leave a Reply