Reply to comment

To Fred Bortz and Benedikt Terhechte

The main point of my blog was, of course, to pay attention to the weakness in the classical theory, not to support the creationists or to insult scientists. I also think that Fisher’s theorem became long-lived because of its general formal correctness. From a pure theoretical point of view there was no reason to doubt it. I have also recently noticed that biologists begin to talk about this misunderstood theorem, and that it does not prove the maximization of mean fitness, which – in my opinion - weakens the theory.

Recent biological theory may perhaps fill the gap, but I am afraid that it may be very difficult to understand, and I suspect that it will not prove the maximization of mean fitness either. On the other hand, Gaussian adaptation – in its simplest form, assuming the moment matrix to be a unit matrix – is rather straight forward, and should be understandable by a high school student, because a Gaussian is an exponential of squared parameter(s) and the derivative of the exponential function is the exponential itself. Letting the derivative be equal to zero then easily derives the optimal condition for maximum mean fitness. So what do you think, is it possible to make it understandable for young people?

And if I understand Benedikt Terhechte rightly, an easier understandable theory has a higher probability of survival.

Gkm