The fundamental problems with Fisher's not-so-fundamental Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection

[Timothy_Horton]

@stcordova

Of course, look at John Harshman. All I have to do is post something and he’ll weigh in with his insights. I’m happy to pass them on, but I can’t help it if my students laugh at his or your appeals to multiverses as explanations.

Sal will make a great YEC teacher. Every time a question comes up on evolutionary biology Sal can’t answer (which will be almost every question) Sal will just shout MULTIVERSE!!. Problem solved.

[Faizal_Ali]

@stcordova

Of course, look at John Harshman. All I have to do is post something and he’ll weigh in with his insights

Sorry, so has John agreed to volunteer his time to serve as a fact checker for your course, if it ever comes to fruition? Your comment, @John_Harshman?

[John_Harshman]

@Faizal_Ali

Sorry, so has John agreed to volunteer his time to serve as a fact checker for your course, if it ever comes to fruition?

Of course not. Nobody would do such a thing, because Sal’s course would be mostly free of facts in favor of his crazy YEC notions.

[Faizal_Ali]

@John_Harshman

Of course not. Nobody would do such a thing, because Sal’s course would be mostly free of facts in favor of his crazy YEC notions.

So that’s one “No” to the job offer. Who else do you have in mind, @stcordova?

[stcordova (Salvador Cordova)]

@Faizal_Ali

So that’s one “No” to the job offer. Who else do you have in mind, @stcordova?

What I meant was I was going to pass on links to our discussions here so people have access to see the other side of the issue.

This thread for example, you all had a chance to say what you wanted:

Faith in mechanisms that would be outside our reach and understanding (as a matter of principle)

If they’re curious to see your point of view, they can get it.

Now, of course, if you all appear hostile and biased and petty toward me in the eyes of my students/listeners, that’s not on me. In fact, I’m more than happy to point to discussions where all that’s dished out toward me is ad hominems with little factual counter arguments.

[Faizal_Ali]

I see. Do you really think that is a proper way to run a college-level course? “A lot of what I will be teaching you will be wrong, because I don’t actually know what I am talking about. But that’s OK, you can go on internet chat sites to find the correct information.”

Do you really expect people to pay good money for such a course?

[stcordova (Salvador Cordova)]

@Faizal_Ali

Do you really expect people to pay good money for such a course?

It’s free, so you can see the videos I make too and critique them.

In truth, some of my posts here at Peaceful Science were to gauge the technical accuracy of some of what I’ll teach, for example, you saw my arguments about Fisher’s theorem and the dubious relevance of population genetics to evolution even though Dawkins advertises it as “biology’s central theorem.”

I think I demonstrated in easy-to-follow detail why Fisher’s Theorem is a nothing-burger and can’t be used to explain the complexity of biology. That was the point.

This echoes what one of the greatest population geneticists on the planet said:

…many evolutionists will fail to find the clear and simple messages that population genetics theory once seemed to promise.

I demonstrated a little picture of that, and no criticism ventured of what I said has overturned the great insight of that quotation.

[Timothy_Horton]

@stcordova

In truth, some of my posts here at Peaceful Science were to gauge the technical accuracy of some of what I’ll teach,

Hopefully you won’t be teaching any geology or paleontology since you butchered those two subjects when you tried to pontificate on them yesterday.

Maybe you can teach a YEC course in how to dodge scientific evidence. Play to your strength.

[Faizal_Ali]

@stcordova

I demonstrated a little picture of that, and no criticism ventured of what I said has overturned the great insight of that quotation.

Uh huh. You really think that is an accurate summary of the discussion so far? That you are correct about “the dubious relevance of population genetics to evolution?” Is that what @Joe_Felsenstein, for example, says about the matter?

Or, if it isn’t, do you think this is merely a disagreement between two equally reliable experts? You and Joe Felsenstein?

[stcordova (Salvador Cordova)]

@Faizal_Ali

Uh huh. You really think that is an accurate summary of the discussion so far? That this is some sort of “great insight”?

This is a great insight:

…many evolutionists will fail to find the clear and simple messages that population genetics theory once seemed to promise.

I merely showed one example of what evolutionists will fail to find in population genetics, such as the failure to find it in FTNS, even though Dawkins’ called it, “biology’s central theorem.”

[Timothy_Horton]

@stcordova

This is a great insight:

It’s a great example of a purposely misleading out-of-context quote-mine from a 30 year old overview article. Good job Sal showing us once again how much honesty means to YECs.

[Faizal_Ali]

@stcordova

I merely showed one example of what evolutionists will fail to find in population genetics,

Sorry, I edited my comment while you were responding.

I see you are doubling down on your claim that population genetics is a failed enterprise and of no relevance to evolutionary theory.

Not to mince words, that is a disgustingly dishonest depiction of the discussion that has taken place here. You should be ashamed.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Faizal_Ali

Not to mince words, that is a disgustingly dishonest depiction of the discussion that has taken place here. You should be ashamed.

I guarantee he won’t be though. Can’t have a sense of shame without a sense of honesty.

[stcordova (Salvador Cordova)]

@Faizal_Ali

I see you are doubling down on your claim that population genetics is a failed enterprise and of no relevance to evolutionary theory.

I didn’t say that, in fact it’s UNwittingly succeeding in helping the Creationist argument, starting with this inference:

If ENCODE is right, evolution is wrong.

That inference came straight out of pop gen. What I am saying is what this quote says:

…many evolutionists will fail to find the clear and simple messages that population genetics theory once seemed to promise.

But creationists are finding a clear and simple message:

If ENCODE is right, evolution is wrong.

And that’s why pop gen should be studied by Creationists, it explains statements like that by a population geneticist like Dan Graur.

[Timothy_Horton]

@stcordova

But creationists are finding a clear and simple message:

Sadly this is the message:

“In all of these efforts, [to promote creationism in schools] the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must.” – William J. Bennetta

[Jonathan_Burke]

@Faizal_Ali

Not to mince words, that is a disgustingly dishonest depiction of the discussion that has taken place here. You should be ashamed.

@Timothy_Horton

I guarantee he won’t be though. Can’t have a sense of shame without a sense of honesty.

No word mincing here.

[Faizal_Ali]

@stcordova

I didn’t say that,

Actually, you did:

@stcordova

This is a great insight:

…many evolutionists will fail to find the clear and simple messages that population genetics theory once seemed to promise.

I merely showed one example of what evolutionists will fail to find in population genetics, such as the failure to find it in FTNS, even though Dawkins’ called it, “biology’s central theorem.”