Darwinism Intelligent Design Mathematics

Vid: Fisher’s Darwinian theorem disproved in conference paper

Spread the love

 William Basener writes to say,

I posted a conference presentation I gave on my work with John Sanford on the Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations, posted on YouTube here.

The talk was the keynote address at the International Conference on Ecology, Ecosystems, and Conservation Biology, in Toronto Canada (a fairly small but fully secular conference). I was able to give a broadly understandable exposition of the theorems and what they mean to populations. I also included a discussion of what Fisher’s theorem has meant to Neo-Darwinism in the past, what I believe our new result means to the future of Neo-Darwinism.

The main result is a formula showing the effect of mutations in combination with selection. Mutations provide a downward force on fitness, and selection provides an upward force. This contradicts Fisher’s perspective and a lot of the work and implications people derive from Fisher’s view that mutation + selection generally leads to increasing fitness in a population.

The paper is available from Springer Journal of Mathematical Biology.

So far, no repercussions.

Biological Information We wonder, will a book follow? Will it be withdrawn by the publisher at the last minute, due to pressure from Darwinians? Basener was one of the presenters at the Cornell Conference, whose proceedings Springer (yes, same company, maybe different vice-president?) backed away from under pressure from Darwin’s flock. The book was later published by World Scientific as Biological Information: New Perspectives.

See also: Basener stands his ground at Skeptical Zone: Fisher’s Darwinian theorem is clearly false.

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

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

Fisher’s proof of Darwinian evolution has been flipped?

“Fisher’s Proof of Darwinism Has Been Flipped” paper is making waves – Twitter displeased

Fisher’s proof of Darwinism flipped: William Basener replies to Erasmus Wiffball

and

Fisher’s Proof of Darwinism Flipped: William Basener replies to Bob O’Hara. The mutation rate used in the paper is 1 mutation per generation. As with all the parameters in the paper we chose this parameter so that if there is any bias, the parameter selection favors selection and increasing fitness.

13 Replies to “Vid: Fisher’s Darwinian theorem disproved in conference paper

  1. 1

    Excellent post. Thank you, UD. The a/mats are trying to keep the Darwinian narrative going but it is getting more difficult. Most of them know (but dare not admit it) that their beloved Darwinism is a complete fraud.

  2. 2
    Amblyrhynchus says:

    The talk was the keynote address at the International Conference on Ecology, Ecosystems, and Conservation Biology, in Toronto Canada (a fairly small but fully secular conference).

    The grab-bag title of this conference set off my skeptical hackles. Sure enough, this is run by Conference Series LLC, a spin-off from the OMICS group of fraudulent publishers. Their MO is to harvest email addresses from papers and academic websites, invite speakers to conferences and exorbitant prices then put minimal expenses into putting on a meeting with the handful of people who replied to the spam emails. http://science.sciencemag.org/.....54/76.full

  3. 3
    anthropic says:

    Ambly 2

    So you don’t approve of the conference, so that proves the argument is fallacious. Without, you know, coming to grips with the evidence & logic.

    Uh-huh.

  4. 4
    Amblyrhynchus says:

    I don’t believe I said that, did I?

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    A, did you actually address substance, or did you simply rule a red line and dismiss? If the latter, Anthropic is well within rights of fair comment. To see the answer, just scroll up. KF

  6. 6
    Eugene S says:

    #2 && #4

    What an “excellent” unbeatable position. If you disagree, you engage into ad hominem rhetoric and then deny it. You kill two (or even three) birds with one stone: make believe you responded to opponents, avoid responsibility for your own substance-free comments and, finally, even persuade yourself that all of this is right.

  7. 7
    cmow says:

    I just read the Part II thread on The Skeptical Zone, linked above. I’m just a layman, but it seems like no major objections from that crowd that Basener didn’t address — to the point where they started trivializing the results of the paper, and worrying about the danger of YECs picking up on it. I guess you know you’ve ‘won the argument’ when all your opponents can do is get snarky about religion.

  8. 8
    Amblyrhynchus says:

    The obsession around here with point-scoring and reading motive into every non-IDists comment is strange.

    I pointed out that this was conference was a scam because I thought it was interesting, and not included in the OP.

    I haven’t listended to the talk, but I imagine it’s a rehash of the paper. The paper appears to be corrent within its assumptions, the discussion and certainly the blogs surrounding it overstate the importance of the results though.

  9. 9
    PaV says:

    Amblyrhynchus:

    I pointed out that this was conference was a scam because I thought it was interesting, and not included in the OP.

    I was skeptical of your claims at first—having never heard of such things; but, after looking around I believe you’re right: Conference Series is affiliated with OMICS Group, which is being sued by the FTC.

    But a couple of points: (1) the suit is meant to help those scientists who submitted papers to one of OMICS publishing companies, wherein the submission of papers involve the payment of fees, while not including the peer review the authros were promised. That’s highly deceptive. Worst of all, though, is the fact that once the papers were submitted to these publishing companies, they could not they be retracted from publication in these companies which, of course, prevent them from being published in legitimate journals or venues. So, we’re not talking about papers that are fraudulent, but dishonest representation and underhanded solicitation on the part of these ‘predatory’ publishers in soliciting required fees of those desiring their papers be published.

    The FTC says this:

    “As a result, in many instances, consumers only discover that their articles will not be peer-reviewed and that they owe fees ranging from several hundred to several thousands of dollars after defendants inform them that their articles have been approved for publication. Consumers’ attempts to withdraw their articles are frequently rejected, thereby preventing them from publishing in other journals.” (Italics in complaint.)

    (2) World Scientific is not on Beall’s list of predatory publishers. And the papers included in the work linked to above were published in 2013.

    I think Prof. Basener needs to be a bit cautious here. However, none of this detracts from the quality of his paper.

    In your remarks, Ambly, I think you’re saying pretty much the same thing regarding Basener’s paper.

  10. 10
    Bob O'H says:

    William Basener missed a trick here – he could have got a trip to the south of France to attend the joint ESEB/ASN/SSB/SSE meeting in Montpellier next month. That’s where most of the top evolutionary biologists will be. I agree with others that the Toronto meeting is a bit “meh”. I work in ecology, and the only name I recognised was Basener’s.

    Next year’s ASN/SSB/SSE joint meeting will be in Rhode Island. The ESEB meeting will be in Turku, in Finland. So if Basener wants to visit somewhere slightly obscure at meet the people he should be talking to, he has a couple of choices.

  11. 11
    ET says:

    Ambly:

    The grab-bag title of this conference set off my skeptical hackles….

    If you are an evolutionist you don’t have any skeptical hackles

  12. 12
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    Next year’s ASN/SSB/SSE joint meeting will be in Rhode Island. The ESEB meeting will be in Turku, in Finland. So if Basener wants to visit somewhere slightly obscure at meet the people he should be talking to, he has a couple of choices.

    And what are those people going to tell him? If they admit the truth they will say that they don’t have a clue as to how natural selection or drift produced protein machines and the diversity of life. They will tell him that they need testable hypotheses for their position.

  13. 13
    Bill B says:

    I think the comment from Amblyrhynchus is fair, assuming its meant as a comment and not to disparage the talk.

    Its appropriate to be generally skeptical of Conference Series LLC. I wouldn’t publish in their journals, and I would consider it a red flag if I was reviewing an applicant for a position or tenure if it was a place they published. I don’t think their journals are a good means for academics to validate and share their research, for a number of reasons.

    I care less about that for conferences. There were a few talks scheduled that I was interested in – one (surprisingly frank) talk on the ecological devastation in China over the past 50 years, and a few on combining good statistical methods to soils (PCA, clustering, random forest, etc for soil FTIR spectra and genome sequences of microbes in the soil) that I found interesting, and relevant to my work in spectroscopy, data mining/machine learning, and ecological economics. I thought it would be a good place to force me to put together the talk on the FTNSWM, and I could get some friendly but secular feedback. (One person from Chile said they teach a history of genetics course bi-annually and said my account of Darwin, Mendel, and Fisher was consistent with what he teaches, for example; his only critique was that I wrote E. Coli instead of E. coli – stupid mathematician…) Its a short flight to Toronto and the dates were convenient for me, so I had a number of reasons for picking the conference, but not seeing the latest research or reputation. I think the description “fairly small but fully secular” in the OP was a fair description for the conference.

    FWIW, the price was slightly more then I usually pay for an engineering conference, the hotel was nice and the food was better than average for conference-provided meals. I think “fraudulent” would be an incorrect word to describe the conference organization (and disparaging to the nice people I met there), but I think the case is different with respect to non-peer-reviewed pay journals.

    So, nobody should read much into it being a “keynote” address as far as reputation goes – just that its a properly prepared and delivered 40 minute expository talk before a group of researchers in ecology; its a good medium for communication. The main content was already peer-reviewed in Spring JOMB, so there is no need for additional validation. But, disparaging the content of the talk over the reputation of the organizing company really isn’t thinking straight.

    Bob O’H – I should take you up on that! Wish I could make France, but I do know a great Portuguese restaurant in Rhode Island that I haven’t been to in years – I’m going to see if it fits my schedule. Either way I am sure I would learn a lot. I like your way of choosing conferences – my next trip is the SPIE Asia Pacific Remote Sensing Conference in Hawaii this September; I am bringing my wife along and the kids are staying in Virginia.

Leave a Reply