Basener and Sanford falsifying Fisher’s Theorem at Skeptical Zone, Part II
| February 20, 2018 | Posted by News under Culture, Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design |
Further to Basener stands his ground at Skeptical Zone: Fisher’s Darwinian theorem is clearly false, here is Part 2: Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part II: Our Mutation-Selection Model by Basener and Sanford:
In short, we agree with JF and ML that our paper does not show that deleterious mutations necessarily result in declining fitness. However, we have clearly falsified the converse claim, which is that genetic variance plus selection necessarily result in increasing fitness.
If Joe F and Michael L write a response, we politely request that they provide quotes from our paper that support their claims that we argue that fisher’s FTNS “is the basis for all subsequent theory in population genetics.” (Full sentence: “This is presented as correcting R.A. Fisher’s 1930 “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection”, which they argue is the basis for all subsequent theory in population genetics.”) We also invite them to clarify if our paper claims that “deleterious mutations are unstoppable” as seems to be implied in the title of their article, and provide quotes from the paper if they believe we support that premise.
See also: Basener stands his ground at Skeptical Zone: Fisher’s Darwinian theorem is clearly false.
2 Responses to Basener and Sanford falsifying Fisher’s Theorem at Skeptical Zone, Part II
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
As to this from the article:
It should be noted that empirical testing is the benchmark of determining whether or not a mathematical model accurately reflects reality.
In that regards, Darwinian evolution, and all of its present day permutations, simply have no realistic mathematical models to empirically test against. (In fact as Basener and Sanford make clear in their present paper, the more accurately the mathematical models reflect reality, the more readily the empirical evidence itself tends to falsify the claims of Darwinists).
Presently, Darwinian evolution simply has no realistic mathematical model to test against. As Berlinski noted:
For a prime example of ‘ the more accurately the mathematical models reflect reality, the more readily the empirical evidence falsifies the claims of Darwinists’, I refer to the work of Donald Hoffman,,,
In this following video and article, Donald Hoffman has, through numerous computer simulations of population genetics shown that if Darwinian evolution were actually true then all our observations of reality would be unreliable.
Moreover, completely contrary to what Donald Hoffman found from the mathematics of population genetics, conscious observation, far from being unreliable, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics had predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
That is a prime example of empirical evidence falsifying a mathematical model.
Apparently science itself could care less if Darwinists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, that their observations of reality are unreliable!
Frankly, it is a joke that Darwinists would so frantically try to find some kind of validation for their theory from mathematics in the first place.
Darwinian evolution and the world of mathematics are completely incompatible with each other.
The main reason why Darwinian Evolution and Mathematics are completely incompatible with each other is that Darwinian evolution is based on a Naturalistic and/or Materialistic worldview in which it is held that only matter is real, that the world is just physical and that there is no supernatural (or metaphysical) existence, or that if there is, it has no impact on our physical world.
And where Darwinian evolution is based on a materialistic view of reality which denies that anything beyond nature exists, on the other hand, Mathematics, which provides the backbone for all of science, engineering and technology, exists in a transcendent, beyond space and time, realm which is not reducible any possible material explanation. This transcendent mathematical realm has been referred to as a Platonic mathematical world.
Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond nature exists, need this transcendent world of mathematics in order for their theory to be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent world of mathematics in order to be considered scientific, should be the very definition of self-refuting.
Thus, in conclusion, neither experimental reality nor mathematics itself, when looked at objectively, are friendly to the materialistic/atheistic presuppositions of Darwinists.
In regards to empirical testing, i.e. observational evidence, having the final say in science, here is a tip of my hat to Dr. Behe:
Video and Verse
Why would you build models on something that is illogical? There is no “Natural selection” mechanism: http://nonlin.org/natural-selection/
Selection and Survival are one and the same – the selected survive and the surviving have been selected. Those that disagree should show counterexample!
“Fit” as in “survival of the fittest” cannot be measured except as “survival” (circular logic). Those that disagree should show counterexample!
Natural Selection is supposed to tie both ways survivability with phenotype, but this leaves out the environment which not only affects survivability directly, but also phenotype, itself a sum of genotype plus the environment, and even genotype that is a recurrent function of previous genotypes and the environment again. So in the end, survivability is a recurrent function of genotype, an infinite continuum of environments, and other unknown factors. While survivability can be measured as can be the individual genotype, measuring a population’s genotype is daunting at best, and the impact of the ever changing environment is simply impossible to evaluate. Phenotypes are impossible to define and measure in entirety even for one individual and, in addition, phenotype changes constantly from birth to adult to old age. We do see genetic mutations (unknowable if random) and we do know that, given a similar environment, extreme genotypes reduce survivability, yet we also know that a large variety of genotypes survive just fine in any population.
If you think these are beneficial mutations: http://bigthink.com/daylight-a.....-in-humans
, then how come they don’t spread to the whole human race? And who has ever tested these to make sure they are absolute net positive? How would you even do that?