|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwinist language | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I would like to invite some opinion on changing the language of the
theory of Natural Selection into a general theory of reproduction, thereby getting rid of the emotive language of Natural Selection theory, and providing some secondary scientific benefits as well. To illustrate what problem I am addressing, I will quote a line fromDarwin's "Origin of Species". "and as Natural Selection works solely by and for the good of eachbeing, all corpereal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species) What's Darwin talking about here, a magical force of goodness leadingto perfection? Before reading further, you should try to translate this line into more neutral scientific language yourself, to see if this emotive language is a problem for you. The translation should read:"and as Natural Selection works solely by and for the reproduction of each being, all corpereal and mental endowments will tend to become more efficient in working towards this end." The "good" Darwin is talking about means nothing more thenreproduction, and this is what his theory is "solely" about. This is also well said in a phrase that Darwinists often use to make clear what the unit of selection is. If you are familiar with Darwinists literature you might have come across it several times: "the organism either reproduces or fails to reproduce, and thereforeit is the unit of selection" Again this shows that what Natural Selection is about is reproduction,although the phrase is really about asserting the organism as the thing that Natural Selection acts on. That Natural Selection is solely about reproduction is not clear instandard definitions of Natural Selection. A standard Natural Selection story would probably go something like below: Imagine a field of flowers.... When coming upon a field of flowers, usually Darwinists do notactually describe the field of flowers in the present, usually Darwinists describe only some would be ancestors like: zillions of years ago, there were plants that did not have flowers, and a single plant which had a rudimentary flowerpetal.etc. Darwinism is basicly not much use to describe fields of flowers in thepresent because of the lack of variation in them. But imagine that there would be variation in the present population offlowers that corresponds with a difference in reproductionrate. Each flower is struggling to survive. Those that survive the longestwill reproduce the most. The blue flowers have a higher chance of attracting insects to distribute it's pollen then the red flowers, therefore they will on average survive longer, and reproduce more. This doesn't actually make sense, because it's not neccesarily so thatfailing to reproduce means you will live shorter. Still this is standard Darwinian language that I'm sure you are familiar with. After some time, the blue flowers compete the red flowers intoextinction, resulting in a population of uniformly blue flowers that is more adapted to it's environment (the environment of insects). This may happen when there are red and blue flowers, so in this sensethe Darwinian description is absolutely correct. But there are several more possibilities of what could happen in a population of red and blue flowers. We may find for instance that some insects prefer red flowers, and other insects prefer blue flowers leading to a balance of red and blue in the population. Also it is possible that the variation mutually enhances the chance of reproduction of both blue and red flowers. Or conversely the possiblity that this variation mutually decreases the chance of reproduction of both sorts of flowers. etc. Natural Selection makes us focus on this one possibility of extinctionof the one by the other, leading us to neglect the other possibilities. I find it also deceptive that the chance of reproduction is contrastedsolely with the chance of reproduction of a different sort in the population. Different sorts are but one of many environmental factors that possibly influence reproduction, and so to single out this one environmental factor (a variational other) is being prejudicial about what influences reproduction. What's more the view provided of the flowers is exceptionally narrow.By applying standard Natural Selection theory we have come to know how the flower of a plant works in the assembly of reproductions (by attracting insects to distribute it's pollen), but we know nothing about the photosynthesis in the leaves of the flowery plant. Does photosynthesis then not contribute to reproduction? Of course it does, but it simply is ignored in Darwinist theory because it is normally not variational. What seems peaceful at first, a field of flowers, is by Darwinistterminology reduced to a murderous deathstruggle between reds and blues. You shouldn't have these problems with a general theory ofreproduction in my experience. If you would just look at the flowers in terms of a possible future event of it's reproduction, and any competition with different sorts of flowers as incidental to the possibility of that event. Remember the only reason that I imagined there to be red and blue flowers, is because the standard formulation of Natural Selection requires there to be this sort of variation for the theory to apply. This is not required by a general theory of reproduction. The logic of a general theory of reproduction says that: since allorganisms die, only through continued reproduction are there any organisms left in the world. Compare this to watches, then I would have a general theory of"telling the time" for watches. The logic of the watches theory then becomes that: only because watches "tell the time" are there any watches left in the world. If watches would stop telling the time we would disregard them, and they would all be destroyed eventually. This maybe clarifies something about Darwinist terminology, that youcan equally say reproductive selection, in stead of natural selection, applied to organisms. Similarly you can also talk about "telling the time" selection, in Darwinist terminology applied to watches. The word selection in Natural Selection does not mean selectingbetween two different organisms, but it means selection between the event of reproducing, and not reproducing. Similarly selection of watches happens on the event of the watches either telling the time, or the watches not telling the time. What is maybe difficult to grasp is that it is already very meaningfulto look upon organisms in view of their chance of reproduction, without specially considering variation or competition. To answer the question, how does this organism reproduce? Answers most everything you want to know about an organism. To add in evolution you would only have to ask the question, does this modification contribute to reproduction or not? Take for example the current mass extinction of species. The standardtheory of Natural Selection doesn't apply here, because variation in a population is not at issue. A general theory of reproduction does apply, because it always applies, and gives you the right focus. To focus on the continued reproduction, rather then on individuals surviving which standard Natural Selection theory might lead you to focus on. Or otherwise consider how zookeepers have been quite able to keep individuals alive longer then they normally would be in the wild, but only recently have they begun to tackle the problem of making them reproduce. So there is a mix of scientific benefit and emotional benefit tochanging Natural Selection into a general theory of reproduction. The scientific benefits are maybe small in my experience, but the emotional benefits, to reinterpet the nasty Darwinist language in terms of the more neutral perspective of a general theory of reproduction, are great. Maybe it needs psychological research to prove that the differences inperception are generally significant, but since that is not available you should test the different formulations in your own intellectual experiences. I don't think it's wise to speculate and theorize too much about how other people would perceive the difference betwen Natural Selection and a general theory of reproduction. I think it would be far more meaningful that you bring your own personal experiences to this discussion in using the different formulations. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is one definition of insanity, wouldn't you agree, Syamsu?
You were thoroughly trounced on the very subject you want to bring up again after disappearing for a while. Did you think we had all forgotten? What makes you think that we all want to go round and round in circles with you yet again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I guess it may be my turn to make circles out of squares but you likely more correct S, the idea of a generalized reproduction replacing NS seems far, very far, in the future if it is possible at all. A considerable change in our understanding of mutations (next mutation etc) would have to occur first. I sometimes think the formula {A x (non-universal group theory A_a x a} may be in-expressing the thread head's thought but the difference of orthoselection and orthogeneisis for say Ford's position which is not Wright's tends to crop in/up here. As far as I understand it NS is not about sex but is it allways to be associated with denial of some double signification of Mendel? This I do not know but could signal the change to some general reproduction of cross generational information transfer. Problem would then be definitionally with concept of information that Wolfram holds to as to denial (when not the thing itself) of Von Neuman's claim that computation implies entropy increase. I do not know if anyone has 'disassociated' cost of human caluculation from the freeing of reasoning nauture that atutomatic computation devices provide. This notion of general reproduction however does not seem to be coming from cybernetics however.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]I would like to invite some opinion on changing the language of the theory of Natural Selection into a general theory of reproduction, thereby getting rid of the emotive language of Natural Selection theory, and providing some secondary scientific benefits as well. To illustrate what problem I am addressing, I will quote a line fromDarwin's "Origin of Species". "and as Natural Selection works solely by and for the good of eachbeing, all corpereal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species) What's Darwin talking about here, a magical force of goodness leadingto perfection? Before reading further, you should try to translate this line into more neutral scientific language yourself, to see if this emotive language is a problem for you. The translation should read:"and as Natural Selection works solely by and for the reproduction of each being, all corpereal and mental endowments will tend to become more efficient in working towards this end." The "good" Darwin is talking about means nothing more thenreproduction, and this is what his theory is "solely" about. This is also well said in a phrase that Darwinists often use to make clear what the unit of selection is. If you are familiar with Darwinists literature you might have come across it several times: "the organism either reproduces or fails to reproduce, and thereforeit is the unit of selection"[/quote] [/B] Let me agree with your lexical intention but disagree with grammer, no matter the semantics. Reprodutive isolation when thought "prophetically" between the cellular nature and populational instantiation need not meso evolutionally be symetrical even if micro evolutionally and macroevolutionally there is no deviation even transitively from a common symmetry per taxogeny (ie no matter the particular reproduction). "barriers" to reproduction could be topologically constrained but not topograophically and we yet do not have a reliable enough biogeography to express this in terms of whatever the genes *could* horizontally at least co-ordinate. My papers will be next year put on their own web site and there are three components I recognize here.1)Somatic Programs 2)Deductive Biogeography 3)Hypothesis of Nuclear Action at a Distance. but even with all this, natural selection could still be the operative function of the change(optimal efficiency), this work may bring biology; to helping: prevent #an elite collapse of a food web< that supports ANY reproduction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
It's certainly not my intention to go around one more time with the likes of Schrafinator, or even Peter. I have just made it into a more clear and logical story for those that are not defensively minded.
Notice that Peter absolutely insists on survival, while this position is clearly made invalid in my story of the flowers. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
You are just arguing something too difficult in denial of the simple basic observations.
There seem to be a lot of oaktrees. The oaktrees reproduce. How do the oaktrees reproduce? What would it take to save an oaktree from extinction in some area, what would it take to have it reproduce? That which inhibits the oaktree from reproducing are negative selective pressures, that which contributes to an oaktree reproducing are positive selective pressures. When the environment changes the chances of reproduction of an organism may change as well. Clearly there are many cases where it is interesting to look at reproduction, without considering variational competition. Especially different environments for same sort organisms is interesting enough. Therefore it needs to be understood to first look upon an organism in view of it's chance of reproduction, and the environment as selecting on this chance. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Let me get this straight and then I will address the "juglar".
You mean to intimate that I:1)am denying something visible and/or am in some state of denial, 2)I use some conceptual response that is "too difficult" IN REACTION 3)I am *NOT* using to see the complex as simple IN AN ARGUMENT? or I am really ARguing??? and as far as oak trees go I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what Croizat meant for the distribution of these kinds more in your neck of the woods than mine as I figured Croizat's notion of "genetic block" which he tied to TREE FROGS to which if they also werent next to the discusion of Pythons I might of said something. Ineed the reprodution of Pythons, tree frogs, and Oaks if they even have any climate in common would be difficult to follow for I expect to do this some day in reading Croizat again but this is not me but rather him. So please do inform me if I got the order of you scripting correct for it is possible to read with you syntax the sentence another way around. For instance, I, BSM, do not think I am in denial, so maybe there is justice after all. But if you are asserting this claim to some kind of psyche you would need to be more specific beacause I wont be able to get the Oaks out of Canada on the basis of only your respone and not my original. as to selecting on the environment... I do have this idea but it is inlvolved with my ideas about electrochemical theory but not that but the classical genetics idea of "external variable" (these need not be Darwin's wedge)on Olby's notion of Mendel, not the ones generally in the books that do not recognize the binomial expansion as an EMBRYOLOIGCAL concept before being classical genetic. [This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-28-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
1
The basic working of the reproduction of an organism without neccesarily considering any kind of evolution, or optimality. It's as though "evolution" has replaced "reproduction" or "survival" in Natural Selection, so as to say that organisms that do not evolve inevitably go extinct. Organisms then not having a fitness value, but a newness or uniqueness value. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Big deal. I don't think any of us here are strict Darwinists. Darwin is not the final word on anything. Think about this: Would you approach an astrophysicist and criticise cosmology because Newton didn't incorporate relativity? That would be silly, yes? Newton did what he could with what he had, and worked out formulas which are still used very frequently. Other people build on it and modify it. The same has happened with Darwin's theories, yet you insist on reaching back 150+ years and harping on Darwin's book as if it were scripture. It isn't.
quote: I have never seen a definition, except those proposed by the uninformed, in which this is not made clear.
quote: This is silly. Walk into a field of flowers and you'll find more variation than you can record in a year.
quote: No need to imagine.
quote: You are right. Failing to reproduce doesn't make most critters die early, but this is your misunderstanding. A biologist wouldn't make this claim, except in particular circumstances.
quote: And eventual speciation. This fits perfectly well into standard evolutionary theory.
quote: Fine.
quote: No, Syamsu, for some reason it forces YOU to focus on extinction and neglect the other possibilities.
quote: What? Reproduction of a different sort? What might that be?
quote: This is again YOUR problem. Biologists don't ignore this stuff. You insist they do. Sorry, but YOU have a mental block here, not us. quoteThe logic of a general theory of reproduction says that: since allorganisms die, only through continued reproduction are there any organisms left in the world.][/quote] ?????? And this is profound ?????
quote: What you suggest is impossible. How do calculate the chances of reproduction without considering the biology -- the variation-- and the environment -- the competition-- of the organism?
quote: That was a long way round to get right back to the standard ToE.
quote: Sure it is-- not enough variation to adapt to the onslaught of human activity.
quote: What is the point?
quote: I recall that many of us did just this several months ago and we were called racists and liars. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
John, you previously stated (with support from Quetzal) that you can have Natural Selection on a population that has no variation (a cloned population). Could you reference me a single science paper, or even a common biologytext that makes use of the term Natural Selection or Selection that way, without neccessarily referring to variation?
I have had other biologists explicitly and strongly denying that Natural Selection can be used that way, or is meaningful to use that way. I don't think you appreciate how big a change this would be in the perception of Natural Selection to scientists, intellectuals and students alike. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I lost my post to you, sorry, I guess I am finding out that your position is even more remote then I incline to believe. The post aforementioned was not intended as a multiple choice. You may-be are using English in a more formal manner than I am acclimated to from you. Time will tell.
for instance: I am suprised that you say "organ"isms go extinct when it is POPulations that do. Even on my formula for expanding Mendel's addition operationally does not grant me freedom to speak of confusing the individual change with the parts that may fail to change. [This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-29-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Since general interest is with sorts of organisms and traits of organisms, and not sorts of population or populationtraits, I chose to say organisms going extinct.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/courses.hp/biol606/OldLecs/Lecture2001.01.McAdam.html As a result, populations at equilibrium are predicted to have no genetic variation in fitness itself and therefore heritabilities (proportion of total phenotypic variation which is due to additive genetic variation) equal to zero. quote: I don't see how one could deny it, if the proposal is made clear. However, it may not be very useful as virtualy no populations have zero variation.
quote: Respectfully, I don't think you realize what a non-issue this is. The problem is a problem you have projected onto the scientific comunity at large. But in reality, it is your problem. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I'm sorry, I don't see the word Selection or Natural Selection being used here as acting on a population without variation. It is used as driving a population towards having no variation, but then Natural Selection, as I read it, ceases to apply.
----edited to add: The article starts out with: "While Natural Selection continuously increases fitness (relative contribution of a given phenotype to the next generation)" This use of Natural Selection is inconsistent with "surviving or not surviving" (or reproduction). If the environment changed in a way which would make a population extinct, would make all organisms not survive (a scenario where variation is a non-issue), then there would obviously not be any increase of fitness of any organism through Natural Selection.--- Do you mean to say that normally for *every* trait there is variation in a population where each variant has a different fitness? Or do you mean to say that normally there is some variation in every population, and that this variation normally manipulates which organisms reproduce. Respectfully, the evolution vs creation debate mainly runs on politics, not science. The scientific difference may be small, (although I don't think it is that small, seeing that you can usefully apply the simple definition with endangered species / changing environments that have no meaningful differential impact on a population), the more broader conceptual intellectual difference is huge. There is a world of difference between "reproducing or not reproducing" and "differential reproductive success of variants". In the last we are comparing, and all the judgemental language tends to come in, of one being better then the other etc. which is closely associated with Social Darwinism. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu [This message has been edited by Syamsu, 12-30-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Syamsu, can a population of clones go extinct? Can they all die when conditions change? If yes, then selection is working on a population without variation. What I cited for you was a paper defining 'populations at equilibrium' -- that is populations which have no significant variation and as such NS works on the group as a whole.
quote: Why do you read it this way? It makes no sense. You can select one variant, two variants, all variants or no variants. In all cases, it is selection. Why do you think that if a population becomes extremely uniform it is no longer subject to environmental pressures? This is what you imply in saying that NS does not apply to populations with no variation.
quote: And continues with: "degrading forces such as mutation, migration and changes in the environment tend to decrease fitness."
quote: Yes, but only when you cut the sentence in half and present only part of the idea. The 'degrading forces' are integral to NS.
quote: You've said very close to the same thing in both questions. I'd go with the second though.
quote: Only for you.
quote: In your version, there is no comparison-- can be no comparison. Without comparison there are no patterns and thus no theories and no information. You version is "Animal A mates and reproduces." THAT IS IT. Its pointless. You have a problem saying that frog A is better suited to its pond than frog B is suited to the same pond, but that is the way it works. Sorry. It isn't social Darwinism. It is 'some animals freeze to death while others do not. Those that do not freeze can be reasonably assumed to have been better adapted to the cold and are also the one who pass along there genes. Dead critters do not pass along genes.' ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024