Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection...

The argument is not that we all know much more than you in general. Maybe you are a well informed bright person in other subjects. It is that you are completely ignorant about the topic you are arguing, you mis-state what others have said, when it is pointed out to you that you are in error you ignore it, and ultimately you beg for everyone to leave..in a debating forum. You are then a hypocrite when you complain that everyone is just repeating themselves when in fact I could cut your first post in this thread and paste it over every other post you have made and it would not qualitatively change the impact of your "debate". You don't appear to be capable of even understanding the most basic analogies presented such as schrafinator's baseball bat analogy.Because you personally do not like that a group of people used a completely inaccurate defintion of fitness to start the eugenics movement is completely irrelevant. The history of the eugenics movement is both terrible and interesting (though apparently not interesting enough for you to read about it). However, social Darwinism, eugenics, Syamsu's bizarro misconceptions is not the science of evolution or evolutionary biology of which natural selection is one observation (note that natural selection is not the ToE).In every case where you have futily attempted to propose a model with no variation and no NS, the result has been you have been cornered into proposing the existence of variation....and your last line is a gem...why would there be endangered species by your definition? If you cut variation out of the defintion of species then every living thing on earth is a clone so there are no endangered species according to you...if there is no variation in tigers and variation is not allowed they cannot be any different from humans or silkworms since then you would again have to concede variation exists..then since there are no endangered tigers (or anything else)..so you can go tra la la happy go lucky back to the planet you live on with the rest of your identical twin kakapos...which are not endangered either since rare birds must also be identical to humans or gasp...some variation in biological life might exist

Again..... for about the 10th time in this thread, to cut variation from the definition doesn't mean that the theory becomes inaplicable when there is variation. There is a variation of planets and yet still we have a definition of Gravity theory that doesn't include variation...........I don't know if anyone's impressed by your stance of eugenicism which basicly consists of saying you have superior knowledge on the subject. But then this superior knowledge leads you to support the argument that compares Natural Selection to a baseballbat, so I think I can just dismiss your stance on eugenicism as simpleminded.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Ok..define gravity ...this should be amusingI am not sure anyone is impressed by your stance on eugenics which is since you don't know anything about the subject your rants and assertions are therefore more meaningful...you have demonstrated a complete lack of historical knowledge, gross misconceptions about the little internet snippets you have apparently read, and a profound lack of knowledge about biology...yet you somehow seem perplexed that you are not taken seriously by people who have actually studied and done actual research when you make an off base or just flat out wrong assertion.As to your fixation on baseball bats...it was not my analogy..it was schrafinator's...you are really pretty sloppy. Second, she used an analogy because you are apparently not able or willing to comprehend scientific examples of natural selection so she was dumbing it down to facilitate your understanding...I am beginning to think nobody could dumb science down enough for you to understand it.

F = G M1M2/d^2

So according to you..none of the "variables" are allowed to vary....thus gravity is the same everywhere since of course variation must be cut out of all science i.e. M1 and M2 must not vary?..and to be a stickler..that is a formula..you still have not defined gravity.

No......you have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about at all.According to you this theory can only applied when M1 is not equal to M2, just like Natural Selection can only be applied when the organisms are different.Just think about trying to save some endangered specie, and pretty soon you will find yourself thinking in terms of selection without variation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Just think about trying to save some endangered specie, and pretty soon you will find yourself thinking in terms of selection without variation.

---

I do understand what you are saying, however, even endangered species vary. No two individuals (except clones) are genetically identical and even clones vary because of the stochastic nature of parts of the developmental process i.e. cloned cows still have different coat color patterns.If you could produce genetic, epigentic, and devlopmental clones and make a population (which has never been observed in nature or in the lab mind you) and then applied a selective force against them...nothing would happen (assuming you could magically prevent mutations from occurring). Either the selection would be enough to drive everything to extinction or you would just see a slower or faster rate of population growth...and there would never be speciation as without change where does the variation among species come from? none of this occurs naturally and cannot even be replicated in the lab since you cannot prevent mutations from occurring.And if you have no variation there is nothing to select for or against unless you mean will the group of clones die or live. What advantage does one individual have over another if they are identical? Find two identical members of any population. Considering there is variation at all levels among individuals, species, orders, etc...how is a definition without variation in any way useful?Populations will still vary even when there is no selective pressure due to genetic drift for example...mutations are not caused by selection...they are random and are acted upon depending on the envirnomenent..thus, even without selection, variation among individuals, groups, populations etc will occur. Certain alleles can be driven to fixation by chance alone...so that two populations have a different allele at a high frequency.I have also seen you state the fallacy that the outcome of competition between variants is the extinction of one of the two..that is not necessarily the case...the frequency of two variants may change but does not necessarily mean that one has to disappear entirely.Anyway, I assume you will just offhanded dismiss everything I have said.

Again... you understand nothing of what I say. Just describe endangered species for some time, and pretty soon you will be thinking in terms of factors that diminish chances of preservation, and factors the contribute to preservation etc. You can do this for each variant if you wish etc. that would still not be including variation in the definition of selection.I was explicitly referring there to Malthusian / original Darwinism, where competition is described in terms of one or the other going extinct, like in "Descent of Man".regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

So what theory is this 'gravitational selection'?

little of the discussion here is you. You seem to lack understanding in the fact that there are differeing degrees of genetic variation between every single organism within a species on this planet, even "identical" twins. You completely fail to understand any discussion of the expression of different phenotypes, about the role of this phentotypic expression on the interaction between the organism and its environment which defines the fitness of the organism, and how all of these factors define how variation within a population then acts as the raw material for the filter that is natural selection.Your statements that others do not, and can not, understand your points are so much arrogance and plain hubris based on ignorance and a religious based pomposity which feeds your pathetis ego. Many of the people who you are talking to have a much deeper understanding of biology and gentics than you ever will because they work to learn how the system works. You do not and apparently never have nor ever will. Your rantings on this subject have been repeatedly refuted with facts and published observations. When this happens you cry "appeal to Authority" or "I don't understand it so it CAN'T be important". Siam-sue, my four year old daughter debates better than you do. Please learn some biology and try again. You are certianly the weakest link, Goodbye.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
TazP.S. Just as nod to the forum rules, I just gave you, again, a boiled down rational for the inclusion of variation which you have NEVER addressed despite your pathetic rantings to the contrary.[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 07-16-2003]

quote:

---

A baseballbat is not really very comparitive to a theory..... of course. It's obviously your intention to stop any meaningful discussion about that subject with that inane argument.

---

You know, if I wanted to stop meaningful discussion, I would simply follow your lead, Syamsu, and start flinging substanceless insults instead of making any effort whatsoever to meaningfully counter an argument.Why don't you give me a point-by-point analysis of my very detailed baseball bat analogy and explain to me exactly how it does not work in this case?Please explain how I have gone wrong, but please make it a POINT BY POINT analysis.Here it is again, for your convenience:

quote:

---

Say there is a baseball bat manufacurer (Theory of Evolution)

​

When baseball players (Biologists, Geneticists, and other scientists) use the bats to play baseball (do science), the intended use of baseball bats (the ToE), nobody gets hurt.

​

However, it is possible that some gangsters (racists, sexists, ideologues, those seeking political power) might misuse the baseball bats (The ToE) and use them in a way they were never meant to be used, like hitting people over the head with them (applying the tenets of Biological Evolution in social or political contexts).

​

Are we to blame the baseball bat manufacurer (ToE) and baseball players (scientists) because some gangsters (social Darwinists) use the bats for something it wasn't intended to be used for?

---

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-16-2003][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-16-2003]

I do understand what you are saying..however, there is not a shred of evidence that what you are proposing is correct and at the same time there exists mountains of counter-evidence. "factors that diminish or contribute to preservation" is a meaningless statement. If as according to you, there is no variation then there is also nothing to preserve. You then ironically say, you can apply whatever your undefinable factors are to "each variant" but variation is still not relevant?Malthus influenced Darwin...you have it backwards...and Malthus did not describe one or the other (do you ever clearly define any of your terms???). A lot of his work was dedicated to within species competition...but then since you apparently think every individual is identical genetically, identical morphologically, and lives in an identical environment...how can you believe there is extinction?Here is a question for you...do you think you are genetically identical to your parents?...morphologically?

You seem to constantly avoid the suggestion that endangered
species are endangered by man ... hunting/poaching, destruction of
natural habitats (for farming, wood, etc.), and so on.Unless you want creatures to suddenly develop bullet-proof hides
I do not see that there is a 'biological' perspective to preserve
them ... it's more political. Yes to establish game reserves one
needs to know what habitats will support how many of what
creatures.These considerations are GENERIC ... they DELIBERATELY avoid
variational considerations because they want to know what in GENERAL
do these animals need to survive.A large part of the effort in maintaining game reserves is policing
and public education.

OK, think of it this way:'Evolution' embodies the study of and attempted explanation for
the diversity of extant life on earth.There IS a diversity of life on earth, and many of us are driven
to attempt to understand how that could have come about.How, do you think, one might study 'diversity' without making
reference to 'variation'?Here's an idea ... describe 'gravity' without reference to
'mass'....and you are STILL ignoring my question regarding WHAT
natural selection is.If natural selection is a description (not a theory) of
nature, how can we ignore any aspect of the object of
the description?

For those that keep on saying that variation exists, as if that's some kind of argument, I can equally say the standard definition is wrong then by that argument, because the standard definition also doesn't consider variation between parent and offspring. They are simply reproduced, copied, and no attention is given to copying errors / mutation. For istance when there is some mutation that makes some organ dysfunctionate, then when the reproductive success of the dysfunctioniate mutant is measured against the non-mutant population, it's not supposed that the non-mutant will mutate or whatever... What a load of tripe you all offer as argument.It's a shame you find it meaningless to look in terms of preservation Mammutthus because then I guess we will have no damn way of helping endgangered species and reversing the trend. You're obviously also disqualified as a zookeeper. The selectioncriteria for the job as zookeeper clearly state you should know to describe organisms in terms of their survival, reproduction, and preservation.Maybe you have much knowledge, although I'm beginning to doubt that now, but your arguments are tripe. Variation exists, this is your justification for including variation in the definition of selection. Fair is fair, now you've given your argument so you should just shut up, since there is no possible way to further your argument anymore.Same thing goes for the argument about baseballbats.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu