Culture Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design

Basener and Sanford falsifying Fisher’s Theorem at Skeptical Zone, Part II

Spread the love

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 Replies to “Basener and Sanford falsifying Fisher’s Theorem at Skeptical Zone, Part II

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    As to this from the article:

    “Our model is a finite model with mutations occurring probabilistically across a realistic distribution of effects on fitness, which is a significant deviation from most previous models.”
    ,,, Mathematical models are not reality.,,, “Every model is only an approximation of some isolated subset of reality, and each model is only useful insofar as it: (1) includes the variables and rules to be studied and: (2) the rules governing change in the model accurately approximate the most important factors affecting change in reality”…
    ,,, “It is clear that population genetics models rely on assumptions known to be false, and are subject to the realism / tractability trade-off. The simplest population-genetic models assume random mating, non-overlapping generations, infinite population size, perfect Mendelian segregation, frequency-independent genotype fitnesses, and the absence of stochastic effects; it is very unlikely (and in the case of the infinite population assumption, impossible) that any of these assumptions hold true of any actual biological population. More realistic models, that relax one of more of the above assumptions, have been constructed, but they are invariably much harder to analyze. It is an interesting historical question whether these ‘standard’ population-genetic assumptions were originally made because they simplified the mathematics, or because they were believed to be a reasonable approximation to reality, or both. This question is taken up by Morrison (2004) in relation to Fisher’s early population-genetic work. “ Samir Okasha 2006/2012

    It should be noted that empirical testing is the benchmark of determining whether or not a mathematical model accurately reflects reality.

    The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video
    Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

    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:

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003

    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.

    Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark
    Quote: “fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?”

    The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016
    The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.
    Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.”

    The Interface Theory of Perception
    Donald D. Hoffman & Manish Singh & Chetan Prakash
    http://people.psych.cornell.ed.....erface.pdf (follow-up discussion)

    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.

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea 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.

    Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics – video

    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:

    Michael Behe – Observed (1 in 10^20) Edge of Evolution – video – Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines
    25:56 minute quote – “This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not.”

    Video and Verse

    Darwinian Evolution: A Pseudoscience based on Unrestrained Imagination and Bad Liberal Theology – video

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  2. 2 says:

    Why would you build models on something that is illogical? There is no “Natural selection” mechanism:

    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:
    , 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?

Leave a Reply