Nick Matzke posted Entry 3168 on June 3, 2007 01:58 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/3158

So I guess DaveScot and Dembski didn’t like Mark Chu-Carroll’s critique (which I linked to) of Behe’s usage of fitness landscape concepts in The Edge of Evolution.

Well, if anyone is still having trouble getting it, check out Good Virus, Bad Creationist at the blog ERV. The reason I say it’s the best Behe critique ever is the style. L.O.L.

PS: And watch out for ERV. She’s clearly going to run the planet someday, or at least the NIH.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Post a Comment

Use KwickXML formatting to markup your comments: <b>, <i>, <u> <s>, <quote author="...">, <url href="...">, etc. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.




Remember personal info?

  


Comment #181459

Posted by Bob O'H on June 3, 2007 3:35 AM (e)

Both Mark CC and ERV say that these are three of Behe’s assumptions:

1. Evolution can be modeled in terms of a static, unchanging fitness landscape.
2. The fitness landscape is a smooth, surface made up of hills and valleys, where a local minimum or maximum in any dimension is a local minimum or maximum in all dimensions.
3. The fitness function mapping from a genome to a point of the fitness landscape is monotonically increasing.

I’m having trouble understanding the third. Either the fitness function is monotonically increasing in the dimensions it is mapping from, in which case assumption 2 is violated, or it is monotonically increasing in another dimension (e.g. time), in which case assumption 1 is violated.

I assume that someone got this wrong: is Behe saying that the mean fitness of the population is increasing (which seems to be ERV’s interpretation)? Or something else?

Help!

Bob

Comment #181469

Posted by g on June 3, 2007 5:05 AM (e)

What they mean by #3 (which I agree they expressed badly) is that evolution is being modelled as a “hill-climbing” search process, in which you start somewhere or other on the landscape and *always* move uphill. So you’re liable to get stuck at the nearest local maximum.

The point MarkCC makes in response is: no, actually, there’s enough “noise” in the process that sometimes you can move downhill, so if there happens to be a much better hill nearby then you can get onto it. ERV adds to this the observation that what you actually have isn’t a single point on the fitness landscape, but a whole lot of them, possibly sitting at lots of different local maxima. (So if there’s a really big hill somewhere around there’s more chance that one of them will find it.)

Unfortunately, MarkCC’s point #2 is rather broken. So far as I can tell from MarkCC’s and ERV’s commentary (I haven’t read the book myself) Behe isn’t exactly claiming that “a local minimum or maximum in any dimension is a local minimum or maximum in all dimensions”. Mark elaborates on this point, claiming that when the number of dimensions of the fitness landscape is very large there aren’t likely to be lots of local maxima. Unfortunately, that’s just plain wrong; high-dimensional fitness landscapes *do* tend to have an enormous number of local maxima.

Not that it matters; the facts the the fitness landscape changes, the search process can move downhill sometimes, and there’s a large population of searchers (possibly all on slightly different fitness landscapes, too), are enough to explode Behe’s argument, at least if MarkCC’s account of it isn’t completely garbled.

And of course there’s no reason to suppose any species is at anything better than a local maximum anyway.

Comment #181472

Posted by Chris Hyland on June 3, 2007 5:22 AM (e)

I think the other point is depending on the particular mutation the distance traversed on the landscape varies, so it is perfectly possible to ‘jump away’ from a local maximum.

Comment #181479

Posted by Bob O'H on June 3, 2007 7:22 AM (e)

g - that’s what I suspected it meant (Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem and all that). Of course, that’s only relevant to the mean fitness, and there is variation about that.

The inability to transverse peaks does need the infinitessimal assumption too (to stop the population jumping to another peak).

On the topology of fitness functions, one of the books in the pile I should read some time is by Sergey Gavrilets, and apparently argues that the fitness landscape is largely flay, with holes, so that there aren’t peaks to be jumped between. I wonder if Behe cites Gavrilets?

Bob

Comment #181480

Posted by Richard Simons on June 3, 2007 7:26 AM (e)

Rabble Rouser

And when you all run the planet, there will be no more weapons of mass destruction built by atheist scientists?
(After all, Dawkins assures us most scientists are atheists.)

And the relevance of this is … ?

Comment #181494

Posted by Ian on June 3, 2007 8:16 AM (e)

By the way, the book is in stores now (at least Borders), so people can sit down, enjoy some coffee, and pick Behe’s arguments apart (of course you could always buy the book, but what’s the fun in that?)

Comment #181499

Posted by raven on June 3, 2007 9:16 AM (e)

Sort of following this discussion superficially, not being a specialist.

One thing that has come out of deep time is that the ecology, ecosystems, and thus the fitness landscape isn’t static through time. In fact it is in a constant state of major flux.

Ice ages occur, they recede, oxygen levels have been much higher at 25% and much lower at 16%, the midwestern shallow sea fills in and becomes limestone, sea levels rise and fall, continents drift, old growth forests routinely burn and reset to zero, an asteroid slams in, and on and on.

In other words the fitness landscape is in a constant and serious state of flux and chance and chaos play no small part. An organism adapted to a local optimum will eventually find itself maladapted to new conditions.

The synapsids, which IIRC were advanced mammallike reptiles were an ancient lineage that looked at the time destined to end up at the top of the heap. Then something happened at the end of the triassic and they disappeared and the dinosaurs got their chance. The current theory is the dinosaurs might be building space ships about now if the asteroid hadn’t hit in Yukatan.

Fitness landscapes are ephemeral and ever changing. Lineages that persist tend to be small in size, generalists, or live in buffered environments such as the deep seas.

Comment #181509

Posted by Hrafn on June 3, 2007 10:26 AM (e)

What I found hilarious was the comment from Jehu on UcD claiming that the “No Free Lunch therom” was Dembksi’s, when all Dembski did was provide some Jello topping for them.

Comment #181513

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson, OM on June 3, 2007 10:53 AM (e)

Nick Matzke wrote:

And watch out for ERV.

Oh, I’m way ahead of you, I have already added ERV to my browser lists after perusing a few nice posts. (I.e. two days ahead. ;-)

Comment #181514

Posted by TomS on June 3, 2007 10:54 AM (e)

There is this comment from D.

Are there any anti-ID writings, no matter how ill-conceived or mean-spirited, that PT won’t endorse?

There is so much that can be said about this. After all, it is the “big tent” strategy which allows just about anything, as long as it isn’t evolution. And what about the associations being alleged between evolutionary biology and immorality, including various social/political movements of the early 20th century?

Comment #181521

Posted by ERV on June 3, 2007 11:18 AM (e)

Ha-haa! Gotcha Pandas Thumb! Im really a Creationist, Jane Gene, and I made that all up! Ha-haaa!

**disappears in a poof of smoke**

:P

No really, thanks for the encouragement, and please ask all the questions you want and point out every error you think/know I made. Im a student, and corrections help me learn :)

Comment #181538

Posted by Mike Elzinga on June 3, 2007 12:27 PM (e)

There are some other features that are implicit in what ERV was discussing. In a fitness landscape for microorganisms, very small changes can pop you into another dimension very quickly, perhaps even in a single generation (perhaps even within a generation if lateral transfers are taking place).

These possibilities are analogous to “tunneling” in nanoscale systems in physics where electrons, even atoms, can tunnel from one state to another. Now imagine a large collection of closely spaced quantum wells in which the electrons are moving. The wave function for the electrons begins to spread out into bands if tunneling from well to well becomes possible. The probability of finding an electron in a particular state becomes a superposition of the states made possible by the presence of all the wells.

And it’s not even clear in real multidimensional fitness landscapes that they are orthogonal. Maybe they could be decomposed into some kind of orthogonal set, but the fact that the landscape keeps changing in time suggests (certainly on the scale of a microorganism) that the transition from one dimension to another is extremely easy.

Getting down to the scale of a virus is approaching the domains in which nanoscale systems behave. So what ERV describes is quite familiar to a physicist.

Comment #181551

Posted by Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 3, 2007 2:58 PM (e)

It might be an interesting exercise to attempt a Sokal-style hoax to see what exactly PT is prepared to believe about ID. I herewith offer a prize, worth up to $200, to anyone who can pull this off and afterward reveal that it was all a hoax (the precise amount to be determined by how cleverly it is pulled off).

I wonder if he’ll pay up in scotch?

Comment #181553

Posted by Raging Bee on June 3, 2007 3:23 PM (e)

RevBDC: It’s possible that Mark Hausam is posing as a Christian YEC in order to claim your prize. I couldn’t make Christianity look dumber than he does, even if you paid me a thousand times that amount!

Comment #181564

Posted by globalizati on June 3, 2007 4:59 PM (e)

I’m sad. I thought after the (very thorough) refutations of his first book, Behe might simply go away. But that would be overestimating how much IDists and creationists place on proposing ideas that are scientifically sound.

Comment #181568

Posted by Frank J on June 3, 2007 5:19 PM (e)

ERV:

Nice article. I hope that “astrological sign” and “zodiac year” in your profile are jokes too.

Nick:

Gotta admit that Behe’s own testimony at Dover was one of the top takedowns too.

Comment #181571

Posted by Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 3, 2007 5:33 PM (e)

RevBDC: It’s possible that Mark Hausam is posing as a Christian YEC in order to claim your prize. I couldn’t make Christianity look dumber than he does, even if you paid me a thousand times that amount!

Actually Bee that was a Dembski challenge from his whiny post about Mark CC’s review. But you’re right about Hausam. He’s great at makng his side look ridiculous.

Comment #181573

Posted by ERV on June 3, 2007 5:50 PM (e)

Frank– I dont know how to turn those off!!!! The second I put in my birth date, those popped up! LOL!

Comment #181593

Posted by PvM on June 3, 2007 7:36 PM (e)

Look, DaveScot’s expertise on recognizing science seems to be limited to such pseudo-scientific endeavors as global warming denial and Intelligent design, both mostly based on ignorance rather than an understanding of science.

His musings on global warming show a lack of depth so commonly found in arguments from IDists.

Dembski need not worry though, even though Chu’s focus may be on exposing the flaws in Behe’s arguments, I am sure he will continue to do the same for Dembski. No need to feel left out, just jello out D.

Comment #181607

Posted by Werewolf Pez on June 3, 2007 8:43 PM (e)

If one examines “ERV’s” “Complete Profile” at her “blog”, the third factoid listed, after her age (24) and gender (female), is “astrological sign:” (“Taurus”), which is followed by “zodiac year:” (“Boar”) and then “industry:” (“science”). If astrology is so important to this individual, do you really think that she has anything worthwhile to say pertaining to science? Does it not strike you as being rather absurd that someone who (rightfully) denounces “intelligent design” apparently has no objections towards astrology?

Comment #181608

Posted by Werewolf Pez on June 3, 2007 8:44 PM (e)

If one examines “ERV’s” “Complete Profile” at her “blog”, the third factoid listed, after her age (24) and gender (female), is “astrological sign:” (“Taurus”), which is followed by “zodiac year:” (“Boar”) and then “industry:” (“science”). If astrology is so important to this individual, do you really think that she has anything worthwhile to say pertaining to science? Does it not strike you as being rather absurd that someone who (rightfully) denounces “intelligent design” apparently has no objections towards astrology?

Comment #181610

Posted by Raging Bee on June 3, 2007 8:51 PM (e)

Does it not strike you as being rather absurd that someone who (rightfully) denounces “intelligent design” apparently has no objections towards astrology?

Astrology has shown far more explanatory and predictive powers than ID ever will.

Comment #181612

Posted by fnxtr on June 3, 2007 9:37 PM (e)

Werewolf:

Read comment 181573 in this thread.

Comment #181629

Posted by Mike Elzinga on June 4, 2007 1:16 AM (e)

Raging Bee wrote:

Astrology has shown far more explanatory and predictive powers than ID ever will.

LOL!

In fact it was practiced by someone who actually made a significant contribution to science, namely, Kepler.

Eat yer heart out Wm. Dumpster.

Comment #181630

Posted by Mike Elzinga on June 4, 2007 1:20 AM (e)

Raging Bee wrote:

Astrology has shown far more explanatory and predictive powers than ID ever will.

LOL!

In fact it was practiced by someone who actually made a significant contribution to science, namely, Kepler.

Eat yer heart out Wm. Dumpster.

(Server problems again? Can’t seem to get this to post)

Comment #181650

Posted by noway on June 4, 2007 3:39 AM (e)

Recombination is another thing that can get the search out of a local maximum. That is why crossovers are used in genetic algorithms.

Anyway, saying that a computer scientist does not have the credentials to judge a biochemist’s writings on search algorithms is quite an amusing argument.

Comment #181668

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on June 4, 2007 5:52 AM (e)

“Not that it matters; the facts the the fitness landscape changes, the search process can move downhill sometimes, and there’s a large population of searchers (possibly all on slightly different fitness landscapes, too), are enough to explode Behe’s argument, at least if MarkCC’s account of it isn’t completely garbled.”

Indeed.

Google simulated annealing.

Comment #181699

Posted by Paul Power on June 4, 2007 7:27 AM (e)

Could some expert here please explain the usefulness of fitness landscapes in biology?

I read the Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape) and can see how they are used in genetic algorithms and other borrowings from biology, but I cannot see how the concept adds to out knowledge of biology.

Thanks

Comment #181737

Posted by wamba on June 4, 2007 8:57 AM (e)

Both Mark CC and ERV say that these are three of Behe’s assumptions:

Note that ERV took that summary from MarkCC; she has apparently not read Behe’s new book herself. (after all, it hasn’t been officially released yet.)

She seems open about that, so this is not an accussation of dishonesty; I’m just keeping things clear.

Comment #181740

Posted by Dan Gaston on June 4, 2007 9:12 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'quote'

Comment #181788

Posted by harold on June 4, 2007 10:18 AM (e)

Werewolf Pez -

Well, first of all, the reference to astrology is probably light-hearted and humorous. I’m sure ERV doesn’t “believe in” astrology.

Second of all, your “gotcha” attempt is irrelevant. Someone could wrongly endorse one pseudoscience, yet still correctly recognize the worthlessness of ID.

Having said all of that, I have often used the example of astrology to illustrate how many mainly sincere pseudoscientific beliefs are fairly harmless, whereas ID is harmful.

1) Astrology makes claims that seem intuitively at odds with, and cannot be supported by, rational science, but it does not attempt to deny the findings of mainstream science. It merely “supplements” them. Whether Mars is the “planet of manly aggression” or not, most astrologers accept the scientific description of its orbit and physical characteristics.

2) Astrology is not associated with any efforts to violate legal rights by not only inserting itself into tax-payer funded public schools as “science”, but doing so in an implicit or explicit attempt to claim that one particular sectarian position is “scientifically proven” to be the “true religion”.

3) Belief in astrology often appears to be sincere and to cut across the political spectrum.

ID is far worse than astrology

Comment #181789

Posted by harold on June 4, 2007 10:19 AM (e)

Werewolf Pez -

Well, first of all, the reference to astrology is probably light-hearted and humorous. I’m sure ERV doesn’t “believe in” astrology.

Second of all, your “gotcha” attempt is irrelevant. Someone could wrongly endorse one pseudoscience, yet still correctly recognize the worthlessness of ID.

Having said all of that, I have often used the example of astrology to illustrate how many mainly sincere pseudoscientific beliefs are fairly harmless, whereas ID is harmful.

1) Astrology makes claims that seem intuitively at odds with, and cannot be supported by, rational science, but it does not attempt to deny the findings of mainstream science. It merely “supplements” them. Whether Mars is the “planet of manly aggression” or not, most astrologers accept the scientific description of its orbit and physical characteristics.

2) Astrology is not associated with any efforts to violate legal rights by not only inserting itself into tax-payer funded public schools as “science”, but doing so in an implicit or explicit attempt to claim that one particular sectarian position is “scientifically proven” to be the “true religion”.

3) Belief in astrology often appears to be sincere and to cut across the political spectrum.

ID is far worse than astrology

Comment #181804

Posted by harold on June 4, 2007 10:37 AM (e)

The double post was a result of confusion related to extremely slow loading. Apologies. I would be delighted to have one copy deleted.

Comment #181815

Posted by TomS on June 4, 2007 11:09 AM (e)

Further points in favor of astrology over ID:

4) There is positive content to astrology. It does not consist of merely that “something, somehow, is wrong with astronomy”.

5) Investigation into the consequences of astrology is not discouraged. Astrology remains open to growth and change.

(By the way, just in case that there is some overly literal advocate of ID around, perhaps I should add that this is not meant to be taken all that seriously.)

Comment #181865

Posted by PvM on June 4, 2007 12:05 PM (e)

Evolution can explain everything that ever happened or ever will happen.

I assume you mean the “theory of evolution”? So assume that the theory is correct, would it then not be able to explain everything that has ever happened or will happen? At least restricted to the realm in which the theory is relevant?
Seems rather like a confirmation of the validity of the theory. However, scientists are quite open to the possibility that the theory(ies) may be unable to explain ‘everything’.

Comment #181876

Posted by ERV on June 4, 2007 12:23 PM (e)

wamba– Im running on the assumption that Marks summary is correct. If it were not accurate, Dembski would have pointed that out (I find it difficult to believe Behe would write a book on woodworking without consulting Dembski, even more so with mathematics). So if Dembski cant say ‘Ah ha! Chu-Carrolls summary is wrong! Behe really writes about X, Y, Z!’ and instead chooses to say ‘Chu-Carroll is MEAN! Mooooooooommieeeeeee! *SCREEEEECH!!*’, I feel comfortable with that assumption.

Should Dembski choose to give a grown-up response at some point, and it turns out Mark was incorrect in his summaries, I will gladly address the new facts. However, I wont be reading Behes books in the near future. Again, if he chooses to behave like a big boy and publish a peer reviewed paper on this topic, I will happily review that (ie my response to the Sternberg ERV/epigenetics paper).

Paul– I can tell you how I use them! Ill try to keep it brief :) Okay, Im interested in how the fitness of HIV changes over time within an infected individual. Minor problem– There are innumerable dimensions effecting the relative fitness of the viruses Im isolating from a patient. Im only interested in one dimension: a very specific region of the gene ‘env’. So one of my first tasks was peeling away all the extra dimensions so I could be sure the fitness differences I was seeing between my viruses were because of that env region, and nothing else. You cant ignore all the contributors to a fitness landscapes in experimental design.
So, once I figure out how this env region relates to replicative capacity, Im going to test another parameter, like transmissibility. Are ‘more fit’ viruses better at transmission? Worse? Random? I can also test similar, but different dimensions– like whether this region of env has the same effect on fitness in PBMC, lab cell lines like TZMb-1 (do our lab experiments reflect real life?), dendritic cells, etc. Are viruses that are ‘more fit’ in dendritic cells lead to a more aggressive form of AIDS? What if I add patient antibodies to the infection (add another dimension to the picture)?

Honestly, I find it strange that UD is bawling over Matts math credentials. None of the examples I gave to refute Behes argument required any form of math other than ‘greater than’ ‘less than’. But I suppose when youre generating a model instead of directly taking measurements, or maybe if you have >2 dimensions, or youre looking at all possible genotypes as opposed to a population of genotypes, things require math. *shrug*

hehe Lunch-break post– Hope it made some sense, Paul :)

Comment #181907

Posted by Mike Elzinga on June 4, 2007 1:16 PM (e)

ERV wrote:

Im running on the assumption that Marks summary is correct.

If it is of any reassurance to you coming from a physicist, your description of the process is closer to scientific reality than any “exegesis” on the part of Behe to attempt to portray the fundamental scientific principles wrong (which he will have to do). I’m pretty sure, even without seeing Mark CC’s summary that it won’t miss the primary target.

Hang in there and “save your fingernails”. :-)

Comment #181909

Posted by Dan Gaston on June 4, 2007 1:23 PM (e)

Paul Power wrote:

Could some expert here please explain the usefulness of fitness landscapes in biology?

I read the Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape) and can see how they are used in genetic algorithms and other borrowings from biology, but I cannot see how the concept adds to out knowledge of biology.

Thanks

Ok try this again since my last post didn’t work. The usefulness is that biological organisms (or more usually populations) can be modeled as searchers on a fitness landscape, this practice has been around for some time and I believe that the concept was developed by population geneticists (most of whom were incredible statisticians) first. Mathematical models of all sorts, especially ones such as fitness landscapes with searches, have been incredibly useful through the decades and are becoming more so as computational power improves.

Comment #181910

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on June 4, 2007 1:28 PM (e)

I’m a student, and corrections help me learn :)

Being a student should be irrelevant to learning from corrections. Would that we would all continue so learning when we (officially) cease to be students.

Comment #181953

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 4, 2007 2:36 PM (e)

Ok try this again since my last post didn’t work. The usefulness is that biological organisms (or more usually populations) can be modeled as searchers on a fitness landscape, this practice has been around for some time and I believe that the concept was developed by population geneticists (most of whom were incredible statisticians) first. Mathematical models of all sorts, especially ones such as fitness landscapes with searches, have been incredibly useful through the decades and are becoming more so as computational power improves.

addendum to Dan:

Models are simplifications that allow us to experiment with predictions (and generate them, for that matter) without having to set up huge field experiments.

If interesting predictions arise, or tested predictions produce interesting results, we will often attempt to test those in the field to see how well they match up.

fitness models are sometimes just as useful to biologists as forecasting models are to meteorologists.

much of modern evolutionary theory started with models produced by Fisher, for example, and then tested in the field.

later, simple models produced by Hamilton served a similar function, and still generate interesting work to the present day. Both Fisher and Hamilton’s work are readily accessible and make excellent reading, BTW.

All of Fisher’s seminal papers are available online (here for example: http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/coll/spec… ), and a great collection of Hamilton’s work, including a lot of introspection and historical context provided by Hamilton himself, can be found in this series:

Narrow Roads of Gene Land (Vols. 1, 2, 3)

which can easily be found on Amazon. I especially recommend vol. 1 in the series.

Comment #182208

Posted by Alan Bird on June 4, 2007 11:58 PM (e)

Astrology has come up several times in this thread. If all the superstition that has accreted around astrology over the centuries were to be peeled away, might there be a small factual basis for it?

Back in the days when we were all hunter gatherers, and after our species moved away from a specific breeding season, babies could be born at any time of the year. Could there be regularly observable differences between eg a winter baby and a spring baby? After all, their food (or their mother’s food) was resticted to what was available. The growth and development environment for the 2 babies would be quite different, whether they were eating food or their mother’s milk. The differences might not only be in physical development (and rate of development) but also show up in personality and intelligence traits. Add to that the interactions between ‘adjacent’ babies as they subsequently develop and there might be further regular & observable differences.

When people looked around for reasons to explain these differences, instead of attributing them to the timely availability of food (a repeatable cycle with irregularities) they latched onto another ‘obvious’ cause: the movement of stars across the sky (a repeatable cycle with fewer irregularities)?

Just a thought.

Comment #182299

Posted by Paul Power on June 5, 2007 4:22 AM (e)

Thanks to ERV and Dan for sheeding light on how fitness landscapes are used in biology.

Can you kindly add a little more to my comprehension:

How is fitness measured - in particular how many generations are taken into account?

How is distance along the x-axis produced from the genotype - is it one mutation per x-axis unit ?

Thanks

Comment #182345

Posted by Richard Simons on June 5, 2007 7:15 AM (e)

Re: astrology.
I have seen a couple of apparently well-done studies comparing date of birth with success in sports that indicated strong connections (I’m sorry, I’ve no idea where I saw these). The conclusion was that those who are the oldest in their age-cohort when they enter the sport as children are more likely to succeed, which makes sense.

Comment #182350

Posted by Dan Gaston on June 5, 2007 7:57 AM (e)

Paul Power wrote:

Thanks to ERV and Dan for sheeding light on how fitness landscapes are used in biology.

Can you kindly add a little more to my comprehension:

How is fitness measured - in particular how many generations are taken into account?

How is distance along the x-axis produced from the genotype - is it one mutation per x-axis unit ?

Thanks

The particular details will change depending on exactly what you are studying with the fitness landscape. The fitness landscape and equations used for studying proteins for example would be quite different from what you would do in Population Genetics. I can;t give you exact details without cracking open a Population Genetics textbook or two and giving a list of equations that deal with fitness. In terms of the fitness landscape I am assuming that there is more than one way to do it as well. I know of two different adapative topography methods which are Fishers Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection and Wright’s Shifting Balance. In both cases the X-Y axes are allele frequencies (for example with FFTNS if you have three alleles you have a triangle with each point being an allele and all points on the plane representing a particular allele combination frequency within the population). Then you map fitness curves on to the plane which are of course peaks and valleys in the z-axis.

Hope that helps, at the very least it may give you a few keywords to help you learn more :)

Comment #183710

Posted by Popper's ghost on June 19, 2007 3:12 AM (e)

If astrology is so important to this individual, do you really think that she has anything worthwhile to say pertaining to science?

It’s evident from what she has written pertaining to science that she does have something worthwhile to say pertaining to science.

Does it not strike you as being rather absurd that someone who (rightfully) denounces “intelligent design” apparently has no objections towards astrology?

It strike me as rather absurd that you would make such a moronic ad hominem argument, but there you go.

Comment #183711

Posted by Popper's ghost on June 19, 2007 3:18 AM (e)

BTW, Moron Pez, she posted nearly 3 hours before you put up your idiotic invalid inference that her sign was calculated by the blog software from her birth date.