Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection...

Are you trying to suggest this is somehow circular? All you seem to be doing is showing that the approach is consistent. Or are you simply complaining because biology is at times a less than perfectly exact science.I'm not sure if you are willfuly misunderstanding the term differential, but I don't know what you think it means other than a difference between things, in this case between variants. Therefor there is a differential inherent in NS if NS is thought of in terms of differences in fitness/ reproductive success between variants.

You argued that white moths still have fitness if there are no black moths in the population, but this is not true as the glossary shows. In standard Natural Selection theory, fitness is always relative to another variant and doesn't apply when there is no variation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

In standard Natural Selection theory, fitness is always relative to another variant and doesn't apply when there is no variation.

---

And once again, there is never a time when there is no variation. Your hypothetical populations in which all individuals are genetically identical, look/smell/taste/sound the same, subsist on exactly the same diet, have exactly the same habits, and occupy exactly the same physical space, are nothing but a figment of your imagination.The only things that display no variation whatsoever are your arguments.------------------
Quien busca, halla

Again....Selection still applies to populations that have variation, it just applies individually to each variant, in stead of applying to a variational pairing.Eventhough there is variation in all populations Natural Selection still is not applied to most all of that variation, because the variation is neutral, or the variation is a genetic disease, or the variants are symbiotic. Also you are ridiculing clones too much, because actually Natural Selection depends on reproduction, depends on parent and offspring to be clones, more or less, it is part of the logic even in standard Natural Selection.Obviously when evolutionists admit that most all the time there is stasis in a population for most all traits, then Natural Selection as the description for the Origin of Species, is not applicable most all the time. So really you have it the wrong way around, the standard definition almost never applies, and my definition of selection applies all the time.I wish that evolutionists would stop bringing up their often refuted arguments. It is dishonest to bring them up again and again without taking note of the counterarguments that have already been offered.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Selection still applies to populations that have variation, it just applies individually to each variant, in stead of applying to a variational pairing.

---

Selection is the process that eliminates certain variants (and as a consequence their unborn offspring) from the next generation. Variational pairing is your own term and you alone consider it relevant.

quote:

---

Obviously when evolutionists admit that most all the time there is stasis in a population for most all traits, then Natural Selection as the description for the Origin of Species, is not applicable most all the time. So really you have it the wrong way around, the standard definition almost never applies, and my definition of selection applies all the time.

---

Anyone else would benefit from studying contemporary theories on speciation before making such a claim. I daresay educating yourself is not your main concern. The general stability of most large populations doesn't preclude isolated subpopulations from diverging to create new species. This is widely accepted as the model for speciation.

quote:

---

I wish that evolutionists would stop bringing up their often refuted arguments. It is dishonest to bring them up again and again without taking note of the counterarguments that have already been offered.

---

The irony in this statement is so overwhelming I'm quite honestly speechless.------------------
Quien busca, halla

But of course you don't pursue your argument now about variation being in every population so that Natural Selection applies all the time, because it was bullcrap....Go to some garden in your neighbourhood, pick some plant, and try to apply the standard theory of Natural Selection to it.First of you would need to find some variant to that plant, after searching for some weeks, you may likely find a plant with a heritable difference that confers a reproductive disadvantage in respect to the plant you first saw. But now you also have to determine what the population frequencies of the variants actually are. With plants you may have to travel far and wide to do this, you will need some hundreds of fieldworkers. Some years later, you can finally describe your plant in terms of selection, comparing it to some dysfunctionate mutant you found. That's not really very meaningful IMO.While in my definition of selection you can just take the plant you originally saw and observe it's reproductioncycle, and what contributes and diminishes it's reproduction, the positive and negative selection pressures. That's very meaningful.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Please do demonstrate this to us Syamsu, show us the entirely clonal genomes from all the plants of one species in your area, no sneaky little allelic variation or SNPs now.

Again............The definition without variation still applies when there is variation.Why this topic is in the free for all forum is because of people like you repeating the same old refuted arguments over and over and over.Kindly go away, so to increase the chance some creationist would respond.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Why this topic is in the free for all forum is because of people like you repeating the same old refuted arguments over and over and over.

---

Well said, Sy, don't you HATE when people do that?------------------
Quien busca, halla

Again, you went from arguing against that Natural Selection almost never applies with saying there's almost variation in a population, then you shifted to saying that speciation occurs in subpopulations, meaning that Natural Selection indeed almost never meaningfully applies to organisms that exist, and have existed, just like I said. You lost the argument so now go away why don't you? The moderators on this site would certainly like to see some different discussion on this subject, even if it is in the free for all forum.There

You don't think your creationist commentators might have spoken up already if they were here? Why should creationists find your ideas any more palatable than the current way, you sren't trying to get people to actually do anything different, you just think everyone should use your own half cut version to do it, but twice.

Ah one time a creationist responded, and then he said he couldn't see the problem since evolutionists also define selection as being without variation (Peter, John, Quetzal etc. ) Of course it becomes very difficult to explain then that yes they admit that selection basically is without variation, but that they still include variation in the standard definition because.... (some often refuted arguments follow here).So basically what you are doing is muddying the waters so no creationist can possibly respond to the mess you make of it.The same as with the relationship of Darwinism to social darwinism, Nazism, atheism etc. Some evolutionist comes in and talks about baseballbats and the like as comparitive to the influence of Darwinist theory on the intellectual climate of opinion, and the whole discussion is dragged down to a level that makes it impossible for a meaningful discussion on the subject to develop.Anyway, I may be wrong about the reasons why no creationist responds, but what is sure is that this endless repetition is useless, so please refrain from it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Darwin being one of those people who let his values be determined to a large extent by what he considered fit...

---

Unless you can support this I cannot see that the point has
any merit. My view would be that Darwin accepted 'fitness'
as a concept for creatures in the wild that affected how many
offspring they left ... not as a life-style influencer.

quote:

---

which made him believe he was to blame for his daughter's death, to blame for producing a weak unfit human being which then died,
by marrying the wrong person.

---

I am reasonably sure that such feelings run through the mind
of any parent whose children die (especially young) whether it
be from some heriditary disease or a car accident.As a parent one must protect the children at all costs .. I
cannot imagaine anything worse than failing in this regard.Equally many people turn from god becuase of such incidents.

quote:

---

I have no idea what you're talking about with missing out on anything. As before you can use a definition of natural selection without variation, to different variants. You are excluding things by
basing it on variation, not including more things.

---

So if there is variation, then what are you rattling on about?You have not just ignored my actual question to you, you
have claimed it as irrelvant.If natural selection is a description of nature, how can
you justify leaving out a part of that description?In your view (and I have actually agreed that you do not
require variation for natural selection), how would you
measure the fitness of an individual relative to it's
environment?

You seem to have ignored my comments of 'cause and effect'
with regard to Darwinism -> Nazism, atheism, and racism.Maybe it's because you feel that they 'influence' poeple
rather than directly cause the Xisms.I cannot see that at all in regard to atheism. I am an athiest,
but it was not becuase of ToE (I hadn't even encountered the
ideas at that point in my life). I know many christians and
some muslims who rationalise evolution with their faith. Doesn't
appear to be ANY kind of link there.I'll stick to racism (because it is those aspects of Nazism to
which you are mainly referring). Racism is founded in self-superiority and xenophobia. Plenty of God-fearing christians
are extreme racists (look at the Ku Klux Klan).Racism should be fought at every turn ... and there are not
any 'Darwinists' on this site who would argue with that (one hopes).By contrast, if the Bible is to be believed, the Hebrews who
fled Egypt were genocidal racists ... based upon command from
their god.

Syamsu would measure an individuals fitness by its reproductive success. Doing this for a population of clonal individuals will allow you to see if the population numbers increase, decline or stay the same in a particular environment.