Should we have bunches of neutral body parts?

I am somewhat concerned that we might be playing a bit too loosely with meaning of words, "null", "neutral", and "zero". I would have simply thought that there are NO body parts that have no "cost". It is possible for someone to propose a part has less cost and in terms of some maths it might even be possible for somegroup to assert that there arent much of an energetic 1st law necessity such as to equate little cost with zero in terms of what molecular motions might occuur. But if there wasnt a possibilty of getting these things confused then I would have expected the "Neutralist-selectionist debate" p539 INDEX to pages 474-477 to have overwhelmed the nonreligous aspects of evc and as existant on other web discussion forums but still instead I see this as a problem with Anglo Saxon biology only. Look if I had told Berberry that this is about the nullity of the difference between Metarie and the Turo Hospital parking lot compared with a neutral Missippian that would have gotten lost on a NATIONAL Audience but not on those quatered by the question.Provine thought it appropos to print, "If Wright were to accept the importance of Kimura's neutralist theory, he would have to repudiate what he had been saying about random drift for decades. But he did think seriously about the issue, thinking up scenarios in which he could accept at least some aspects of the theory. Kimura and his collegue Tomoko Ohta constanly reminded Wright that he, after all, was the one who had invented and mathematically developed the concept of random genetic drift and that he should share the credit for this new application of it."p474 Sewall Wright and Evolutionary BiologyI dont think Wright would have had had to if he had thought about nullity where the proponents only thought about a neturality or balance BETWEEN given genotype and phenotype data. You can shift a "zero" nullwise and still have neturality or not but that still only seems to indicate relative cost to me. One can assert neutrality. I dont have a tissue for that. But I wouldnt try blow my nose on it too many times. I am curious how neutrality is THOUGHT to scale across levels of organization within a shifting balance of selections' levels but this is such a sophisticated notion that I cant see how *that* is what inor out of dispute in this thread. Wright would have to "repudiate" what Provine and Gould might have thought but Croizat already prooved to me in ways that my sleekness and even handedness could already note that Gould is not God and that Provine was the stewed juice in my soup. It's harsh but lets all still be friends. ICR can not comment at this time on my proposal about a unversal probability bound as to whether it organizes this error in evolutionary thought but -that there is one and that it is not neutral- has been a "given" for me for quite some time. Sure their may be things effectively netural but being effectively dead it can not be.

quote:

---

1. Mutation creates the platform (Neutral trait)

---

and some have posted more than platitudes about this form of expression. I dont have all the time necessary to create all of the informatioin on a rejection of this platform but I will start by calling attention to PM Sheppard discussion of Wright's views in "Natural Selection and Heredity" so to properly respond to your platform starting your post, the argument would have to be brought a bit further up to date, but this should go a short way towards approving what Electron had to say rather than what someothers created here.Sheppard wrote, "If we reject Fisher's hypothesis and accept Wright's view that recessive mutants are recessive because they are less active than the normal alleomorph, we have no difficulty over the magnitude of the selective values involved being too small to account for the evolution of dominance. His hypothesis does not, however, really help, for it does not explain why the normal alleomorph is usually so active that even if its activity is halved, it still produces an excess of enzyme...."I claim that the strength of your notion that mutation can create a "neutral" platform relies on a LACK of explanation of what the NORMAL ALLEOMORPH is down doing. I believe there are ways to suggest in harmony with Wright's position on the recessive but with the normal how it helps if one doesnt suppose a neutral trait from this start. Sheppard did not need, in his time, to address this in terms of your contribution to evc because the difference of biochemistry and the origin of genetic information was not as detailed as it is today. My post to pinksq was a begining of an explanation otherwise
EvC Forum: What's wrong with reproductive cloning?
and my recent considerations on probability
EvC Forum: Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory
make the whole thing rewritable FROM Sheppard's SENSE OF EVOLUTION. This is what is standard(not to reject Fisher's view). High School Teachers dont think of change like this. I did not think like this for some time either. There is still some overvalued of British rangechange here so this is not the final version.

Ok, I’ll agree somewhat. We can however respond directly from the start if we had something in mind that did not need to see theoretical biology as divided into rigid categories of determinism(bad) other causality(good). I guess my thought arose because I was able or thought I was up to that candlewax.Gman and Paul got OUT of the difference a relation between neutral trait and neutral body part but dpardo’s redirect on bunch was not directly responded to. The the topic shifted to the eye spot but Mick insisted that the entire transition in verbality was an acceptability provided one considered the amount of mitchondrial genes in the exemplar.Note also
EvC Forum: that crazy Walter ReMine....
Where there was a link
http://www.arn.org/...t_topic/f/13/t/001878/p/15.html#000585Where you can readNow Crow said,

quote:

---

Most of these have to do with the verbal description of a concept that is essentially mathematical.

---

but because in the 80s not the 60s to which Crow is justly referring you couldn’t even get near this remembrance of Crow without Mayr ASSUMING typology and others listening to the exchange simply comforting the tennis players and apologizing for the dean of evolutionists behavior else you get locked up involuntarily for talking about the situation too much. Thanks to the internet those kinds of things get overwhelmed by the added dimension of faith based discussions and are inessential thank God but there is still the problem of getting less comfort(you cant sleep on a lap top but God doesnt care if that is how you do it) and more understanding because what biology needs are people who can think BOTH MATHEMATICALLY and BIOLOGICALLY and NEVER relate the two but on paper. So what LOOKS neutral to a mathematician can become an object of the biologist’s neutered notion that becomes a null that the biologist moved to dissect that became the zero of a formula that not longer neutral looking to the mathematician not because his eyes have changed but because of the WORK the biologist did on the object which might have a load but no cost which gains a cost by the zero being rewritten in a database without the null which then appears in print and not in tissue to the biologist who notices a more expensive version who changes the token thought Now when we let c/e issues get in the way of these operations it is hard to carry a thread beyond a certain point.Crow went onto say,

quote:

---

Any differences seem to me to be semantic rather than substantive.

---

but given that Niche Constructors have in this millenium positioned the TRANSMISSION of semantic information across generations it has indeed now become impossible for a student to break out of a recursive loop what was simply a matter of cutting and pasting a few words in the 90s during the bubble blowing time.As for why Crow did not shout for reproductive excesss from the housetops in the past, well Farina knew all too well what they looked like in Collegetown Ithaca NY in the 60s I know that I have been up on this house top for so long I cant get down any more, and I did not think I would have the reproductive excess of two children out of wed lock as must it be if one was by rape. In that case I might have just put the sperm in the dish. It was not, it was just the ‘excess’ or an x-relationship.So maybe some things still look neutral. But that we SHOULD have bunches of them — I also say NO! Besides as soon as a bunch of blebs start appearing it is usual/natural for any neutral thought to start to disappear. And as for my wisdom teeth all I needed to see was that Crow could contemporaneously imagine a slowing down of rate

quote:

---

I don't think the Haldane principle is useful as a way of putting a brake on evolution rates

---

but I am not trying to tie directly these two topics at this time.It still looks to me that they cant get off the diffusion of Kimurisms and that was the same situtation in the 80s if I got that correct. I wish I didnt come to this line thinking I was still ahead of the game of burning the wax on both sides of Cornell Campus but that seems more like the bunch than anything incorrect I have seen in the bunch of posts in this thread.