From: Dace (email@example.com)
Date: Wed 14 Dec 2005 - 20:49:18 GMT
> To say that "the more one selects for resistance the more mutants one
> finds" (p.214 top) is meaningless, for the above reason, unless one can
> that in cells never exposed to the _selection pressure_, there are fewer
> resistant colonies. Since Hill maintains that in cells never exposed to
> _selection pressure_, there are actually _more_ resistant colonies, this
> experiment is by definition control-less.
Unfortunately, in his latest response, Dr. Hill addressed your uncorrected
post and homed in on the error you subsequently corrected.
It sounds to me like you've seized upon a purely logical means of dismissing
Hill's results. I'm afraid that's not going to cut the mustard. If the
cells not exposed to the selection pressure nonetheless show resistant
colonies, in your mind this automatically invalidates the experiment. But
this conclusion follows only from your neo-Darwinian assumption prohibiting
long-distance "entanglement" among closely related cells. You are thus
begging the question. How do you know that similar mammalian cells cannot
exchange information without material contact? If radios can do it (on the
basis of charge), why not cells (on the basis of form)? Clearly, no
principle of physics is violated, particularly in light of quantum
mechanics. It may be that there cannot be a true control in an experiment
involving closely related cells and a large number of passages.
Hill's experiment could be replicated a thousand times in a thousand
different laboratories, and still you would deny the results, as they don't
conform to your predetermined beliefs and therefore, by definition, cannot
be true. This is not science but dogmatism.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 14 Dec 2005 - 22:06:29 GMT