>SJ>Presumably Walter thought you meant something over and above what he
>wrote in "The Biotic Message"?
WE>Well, according to this reply, he was just ignoring me.
SJ>Not necessarily.
Explain how Walter's point (1) fits, then.
SJ>Walter apparently thought he had answered your
SJ>questions in his other posts.
Since Walter didn't post anything at the time that addressed my
questions about computer simulation, and even took Chris Colby
to task for "bringing up" computer simulation, this doesn't
seem very plausible to me at all.
SJ>Again, I find it difficult to believe in Walter's "over a
SJ>hundred page" on "talk.o" he did not mention that the
SJ>"simulation" came from "The Biotic Message".
Amazing, but true. The only time "weasel" was mentioned by
Walter appears to have been in the phrase "weasel words of
evolutionists".
[...]
WE>The original set of claims which Walter made concerning Haldane's
>dilemma specifically brought up computer simulation as an
>indicator that the problem was "robust and firm". I fail to see
>how a claim of "off-topic" discussion can be made when Walter
>himself introduced the topic.
SJ>I presume Walter means that it was not his main "focus'.
Walter made certain claims publicly, then chose not to support
them. That's his prerogative. It's mine to continue to point
out that certain claims were left dangling.
SJ>Again
SJ>I presume everyone else understood it was his "The Biotic
SJ>Message" "simulation" that Walter was referring to.
Well, then, perhaps you could explain why no one else offered
the suggestion that "weasel" was the indicated simulation?
[...]
WE>Does Walter's discussion of computer simulations in "The Biotic
>Message" include a programmable description of recognizing or
>quantifying a "problem" due to Haldane's Dilemma? If so, I'll
>fire up Interlibarary Loan again.
SJ>While TBM does not "include a programmable description", he
SJ>does have a discussion "recognizing or quantifying a `problem'
SJ>due to Haldane's Dilemma". Perhaps you had better "fire up
SJ>Interlibarary Loan again."
If it isn't programmable, it isn't much of a discussion.
I will probably do another ILL request sometime along.
[...]
>WR>2) According to Motoo Kimura's theory of neutral evolution --
>Neutral evolution (during the same time as above) could
>substitute no more than 25,000 *expressed* neutral mutations.
>That amounts to 0.0007 percent of the human genome.
WE>"Extremely interesting from almost every point of view." -- BotR
>
>That's if one uses total base pairs to work the numbers, and it
>definitely does not square with the emphasized "expressed"
>statement. If one works from the number of loci, then Walter's
>number is much too small, since changes in 25,000 loci would
>mean about 1/4th of all loci could be affected, a significant
>amount by any standard. The 1/4th figure does *not* represent
>an upper limit, BTW. Not all mutations are point mutations.
SJ>Please explain the difference between "total base pairs"
SJ>and "number of loci".
These concepts are covered in basic genetics textbooks. Try
Strickberger's "Genetics" or Suzuki et al.'s "Introduction to
Genetic Analysis".
Wesley