Falsification theory of Natural Selection

quote:

---

So the minimal requirements for Natural Selection are just a single organism and it's environment, and not all the things you said

---

well, if you want to discuss evolution, you must talk about populations, becuase an individual doesn't evolve.It's the essence of natural *selection* that there be variability in a population for the environment to *select* on. It makes sense to "select from a population"; it makes no sense "select from an individual."------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky

Edited:Accidental repetition. See next post.

​

[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 06-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Guys, maybe Syamsu means that his points are that NS and evolution is currently misused, therefore he asks us about how we can separate the uses and abuses of evolution. He's so concerned about people equating evolution (a fact) with Social Darwinism (an evil (IMO) philosophy). How can we stop those people? I am sure we're on the same side.

---

Well, if that's the main issue, then the way to stop it is by clearing up the misunderstandings of what the theory says. Syamsu gives me the impression of holding on tenaciously to the misunderstandings, and then blaming the theory. Maybe Syamsu could comment on your interpretation, then briefly state what he thinks the problem is - the theory, or its interpretation. (I think I know his answer to that). Then briefly summarize the problems.This thread has gone in circles for ages, seems like a good time to pull back and summarize main points again.

​

[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 06-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I don't use examples such as China's abortion policy as the main evidence for the relationship of Darwinism to Social Darwinism. The main evidence is from personal experience, like I asked you. What thoughts come up after I think about the phrase "the races of man encroach on each other until some finally become extinct" for some hours. Or think about what it means to be born selfish.

---

Well, first you should realize that describing what is, is not the same as recommending what should be.Second, you should ask: are your personal reactions indicative that the theory is fundamentally flawed, or just that it is prone to misinterpretation? The first requires changes in the theory, the second requires only clarification.------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky

​

[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 06-25-2002]

You are wrong about Natural Selection essentially requiring variation, as I have argued. I suggest you read some of my posts! It's really no good having people walk into a discussion who don't read the thread, I fear I would have to start all over again explaining, as I experienced before.Natural Selection only requires variation when you want to describe evolution with it. Evolution almost never occurs (Punctuated Equilibrium), so the main application of Natural Selection should be describing how organisms reproduce, or fail to reproduce. (in stasis)Edited to add:
===
In the very enlightening article by Lonnig, which is unfortunately mostly in German, it references Clarke as saying about Darwinism that:"The immediate effect of Darwinism was to stimulate biological research.Yet this stimulation, for which evolution has received so much credit, was by no means always of a healthy character. On the whole, naturalists were driven into laboratories2 instead of into the fields. They spent their time constructing "family trees", instead of discovering how animals lived. Organisms came to be thought of as isolated units divorced from their surroundings and the study of ecology, the study of the organism in relation to its surroundings, which had formed a large part of the older natural history, was now sadly neglected."So you see, having the theory of Natural Selection focus on evolution, has detracted from describing how an organism reproduces, or fails to reproduce.
http://www.mpiz-koeln.mpg.de/~loennig/mendel/mendel05.htm
===There are also Darwinist philosphers who argue that Darwinism provides an objective morality to us, and besides normal Darwinists countinuously talk in terms of what is good and bad, and who is better, selfish etc. I think it's more significant to point out the sloppiness in Darwinism in regards to the ideal of neutrality in science, then to mindlessly accept all of Darwinist science as neutral, as by some plattitude in which any science, including Marxist Econometry, is supposedly neutral. Owing to their enormous sloppiness, the neutrality of any Darwinist theory or finding would have to be judged on a case by case basis.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

​

[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 06-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
You are wrong about Natural Selection essentially requiring variation, as I have argued. I suggest you read some of my posts! It's really no good having people walk into a discussion who don't read the thread, I fear I would have to start all over again explaining, as I experienced before.

---

Well, you don't get to redefine natural selection. NS occurs on a case by case basis (of course), in a population (of course). [QUOTE][b]
[...quote deleted]So you see, having the theory of Natural Selection focus on evolution, has detracted from describing how an organism reproduces, or fails to reproduce. [/QUOTE]That's a gross overgeneralization. How about this for a counter example: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~fjanzen/pdf/LHEvol.PDFThis is an entire college course dealing just in the things you say are being ignored. [QUOTE][B]
There are also Darwinist philosphers who argue that Darwinism provides an objective morality to us, [/QUOTE][/b]That's their problem, not biology's problem. [QUOTE][b]
and besides normal Darwinists countinuously talk in terms of what is good and bad, and who is better, selfish etc. I think it's more significant to point out the sloppiness in Darwinism in regards to the ideal of neutrality in science, then to mindlessly accept all of Darwinist science as neutral,[/QUOTE][/b]Well, some of it may be sloppiness, although often I've seen them just get misinterpreted. "good" and "bad", for example, can be fine terms - organisms can be better or worse along different measures.If you're saying that sometimes, some scientists should reconsider how they write, I agree whole-heartedly. If you're saying the theory itself is fundamentally non-value-neutral, I totally disagree. You need to show how the theory itself - as it has been explained to you, NOT as YOU have explained it - leads to any moral statements.

As before, I don't really redefine Natural Selection. When Darwinists say that "the individual either reproduces or fails to reproduce, and therefore it is the unit of selection", then they are giving the same definition of Natural Selection as I have.It's contradictory that you reference one article where Darwinists focus on how organisms reproduce, when at the same time you insist, without any argumentation, that Natural Selection should not be focused on how organisms reproduce.I could interpret your preference for Natural Selection to focus on evolution, in stead of simple reproduction, as not entirely value-neutral. You don't seem to have any scientific argument for it, and there are possible ideological motivations to have the theory focus on evolution. (evolution tends to deny creation by God to many people)regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
As before, I don't really redefine Natural Selection. When Darwinists say that "the individual either reproduces or fails to reproduce, and therefore it is the unit of selection", then they are giving the same definition of Natural Selection as I have.

​

It's contradictory that you reference one article where Darwinists focus on how organisms reproduce, when at the same time you insist, without any argumentation, that Natural Selection should not be focused on how organisms reproduce.

---

I never intended to say that NS shouldn't address reproduction, and don't believe I have said that. In fact, I believe I've said the opposite. Whether individuals reproduce or not, and when and how, is a fundamental aspect of evolutionary theory. It's just not the only aspect. If all of life consisted of a single organism that produced one exact copy of itself, and then died, we'd have reproduction but not natural selection.

quote:

---

I could interpret your preference for Natural Selection to focus on evolution, in stead of simple reproduction, as not entirely value-neutral. You don't seem to have any scientific argument for it, and there are possible ideological motivations to have the theory focus on evolution. (evolution tends to deny creation by God to many people)

---

You could interpret it that way. Please, feel free; I don't agree, but neither do I care. Individuals may feel the way they do for a variety of reasons.But that does not make the theory itself non-value-neutral.What about my counter example that shows that there is indeed work that looks at the factors that affect reproduction, from the standpoint of natural selection? Any comments?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I can say,
-I select the 2nd blue circle over blue circles 1 and 3 (which is most similar to typical Natural Selection usage, although there is no variation here)
-but I can also say I select circle 1 and 2 and 3.

---

No matter which individual (1,2,3) we select, the outcome
for the 'circle' population is the same ... therefore there
is no 'selection' in the sense that NS operate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

The point being that selection essentially refers to reproducing, or not reproducing, and doesn't essentially refer to one or the other variant reproducing.

---

No, natural selection refers to the increased/decreased chance
of some indivduals passing traits on to the next generation.It is very much about the different chances of survival of
different variants ... extrapolating that onto their reproductive
capability is one of the mechanism behind evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
This neccessarily follows from what it is already generally accepted by Darwinists, that the individual is the unit of selection since it either reproduces or fails to reproduce.

---

The unit of selection is NOT the individual ... it is the trait
set that an individual carries.Evolution is the change in trait frequencies over time. The variables
of interest is thus TRAITS. We are seeking mechanisms ny which
trait frequencies in a population can change over time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Making selection essentially refer to variation in stead of reproduction, would make it impossible to have the individual as the unit of selection.

---

yes ... that's because the individual is not the unit of selection
in NS ... perhaps this the root of the problem you are having.You need to look at the problem from many levels of abstraction
simultaneously to see what is being suggested.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Seeing that Natural Selection only means to reproduce or not to reproduce,

---

No it doesn't ... it means to be selected for due to environmental
factors.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
it becomes quite obvious to rename Natural Selection into something like the general theory of reproduction.

---

No ... it makes no sense to view NS in this way.Describe for me any organims in terms of the event of its
reproduction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

So the minimal requirements for Natural Selection are just a single organism and it's environment, and not all the things you said.

---

NS cannot operate at all with only a single organism ... even
by your definition. NS is to select from a population those
individuals acrrying the trait set that is most beneficial
in respect of some environmental factors.It HAS to be about populations, because evolution is about
populations.

On the face of it, the work you referenced deals mainly or only with evolutionary events, and consequently talks about environmental factors in respect to an organism, only if the factors have a differential reproductive effect on variants. This is not what I mean by describing how organisms reproduce. As before, this is like only describing the color of moths and how it relates to trees and birds in respect to it's reproduction, and then neglecting to describe every other trait the moth has.You are confusing Natural Selection theory with evolution theory. If we had life that made one copy and then died, which is more or less what the great majority of living beings do (assuming stasis), then we would still have Natural Selection. We would have units of selection which either reproduce or fail to reproduce, hence we would have Natural Selection.If it were true that the only reason the evolutionary version of Natural Selection is preferred is to support atheism, any scientific argument being absent, then the theory is not value-neutral.That said, you could also make atheist argument for the simple version of Natural Selection theory focused on how organisms reproduce. Then you would have to ask questions like, why did God not create watches for Adam and Eve? Why does God only design things, which are apparently designed to reproduce, and not design things, that are apparently designed to tell the time for instance.But the creationist Paley made an argument about finding watches in Nature, and it apparently wasn't very convincing to make above counterargument.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

To describe an organism in terms of the event of it's reproduction, I suppose you need to look at how it gathers it's resources for reproduction, how it's traits contribute to it's reproduction.I assure you that NS can operate on a single organism, by my definition, but also by the definition of NS as for an individual to either reproduce or fail to reproduce, which is generally accepted within Darwinism.Whatever get's copied, can be argued to be a unit of selection. Darwinists are confused about what should be taken as the unit of selection, but at least they know that whatever it is, it should be copied (as far as I know). It is wrong for you to make an issue out of what the unit of selection is, since my argument would still be essentially the same, regardless of what the unit of selection is.Your reasoning seems to continuously be getting stuck in what amounts to saying "it is that way, because it is defined that way".But forget about evolution, forget about Natural Selection for a moment. How do you describe any single organism then, that you happen to see in Nature? You said you can't do it with Natural Selection, but then how would you do it?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
To describe an organism in terms of the event of it's reproduction, I suppose you need to look at how it gathers it's resources for reproduction, how it's traits contribute to it's reproduction.

---

OK. That is not about the EVENT of its reproduction, that is just
about it's life. One aspect of its life is when and how often
it reproduces.This will be affected by how long it survives its environment,
won't it ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I assure you that NS can operate on a single organism, by my definition, but also by the definition of NS as for an individual to either reproduce or fail to reproduce, which is generally accepted within Darwinism.

---

"I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection."
- Charles Darwin, The Origin of SpeciesDarwin himself viewed NS as a means by which beneficial variations
were preserved (retained) by a population. http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/paper_to_html/selection.htmlTrack down to the section on natural selection for a Darwinist
viewpoint (well Darwin's I guess is Darwinist )NS is not about failure or otherwise to reproduce, reproductive
ability is affected by NS, through the struggle for existence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Whatever get's copied, can be argued to be a unit of selection. Darwinists are confused about what should be taken as the unit of selection, but at least they know that whatever it is, it should be copied (as far as I know). It is wrong for you to make an issue out of what the unit of selection is, since my argument would still be essentially the same, regardless of what the unit of selection is.

---

I don't think there is any confusion (amongst Darwinists)
over what is selected in the NS model. Darwin referred to it
as the preservation of variations that appear useful.NS is, for ToE, about variations i.e. traits.And I have to disagree ... the unit of selection is very important
to a common understanding of natural selection.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Your reasoning seems to continuously be getting stuck in what amounts to saying "it is that way, because it is defined that way".

---

Natural selection is a concept intended to explain how populations
evolve over time. If you wish to argue for/against something
then it must be defined, and it IS the definition that you
argue about.The above makes no sense to me.I accept NS as a feasible mechanism by which to drive evolution.You appear to reject it as false, but in arguing against it you
appear to not actually fully understand what natural selection
is suggesting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

But forget about evolution, forget about Natural Selection for a moment. How do you describe any single organism then, that you happen to see in Nature? You said you can't do it with Natural Selection, but then how would you do it?

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Natural selection is NOT about describing organisms. It is a
proposed mechanism which can drive evolution.If we forget evolution, we have no discussion. NS is aimed
at explaining HOW evolution could occur.Let's start with evolution then::'Evolution is the change in frequencies of [traits] within a
population over time.'Do you agree with that as a definition for the term evolution
within the context of this debate ?If so, we then need to consider what can drive evolution. The
variables from the definitions are::Traits, populations, time.If traits are to change over time, there needs to be some
mechanism for this.Taking things to bare bones consider::A population living in an environment for 10 generations.The trait frequencies at generation 0 are different from at
generation 10.Working backward::What could cause generation 10 to have different trait
frequencies to generation 9 ?Answer:: Some traits have resulted in more offspring than others.What will affect the numbers of offspring beering any particular
trait ?1) Whether or not its parents carry that trait.
2) The number of times that such parents reproduced.What can affect 2) above ?1) Attractiveness as a mate
2) Living long enough to mate
3) Living longer than those without the traitWhat can affect the above ::
1) parental traits deemed attractive
2) parental traits that provide a higher survival chance
3) parental traits that provide a higher survival chance compared
to those without the trait.

If Darwinists are all agreed about what the unit of selection is then I'm sure you are familliar with the work on the matingcouple as a unit of selection (besides the gene, the individual, the population and the species)Again, please answer the question how you describe any single organism you find in Nature. You can't do it with Natural Selection theory, and evolution doesn't apply eihter, so how do you do it then?The rest of the discussion was much repetitive I think.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
If Darwinists are all agreed about what the unit of selection is then I'm sure you are familliar with the work on the matingcouple as a unit of selection (besides the gene, the individual, the population and the species)

---

Could you provide some references and/or context for these,
please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Again, please answer the question how you describe any single organism you find in Nature. You can't do it with Natural Selection theory, and evolution doesn't apply eihter, so how do you do it then?

​

The rest of the discussion was much repetitive I think.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Evolution and natural selection are not intended to describe organisms.They are intended to describe the change in populations over time.In the context of this discussion I do not see the relevence of
the question, but ...I would describe an organism based upon morphology, life-style,
resource requirements, and life-cycle.What has describing an organism (on its own) to do with evolution,
which after all is what we are discussing ?

I wasn't discussing evolution actually, you just assumed I was.As before, "naked" strands of DNA, without a cell, put on a laboratory dish, will "magically" reproduce themselves. It is no good to describe reproduction as some incedental happenstance which happens when an organism lives "long" enough, when you realise the organism is much based on these reproducing molecules. It's been proved also that at the molecular level, the assembly of a copy is something the DNA does, and not something it's environment does to the DNA.Generally the reproductioncycle covers everything in an organism's life. Creationists like Paley knew this in talking about organisms being designed for reproduction, and I can't believe that science has become less knowledgeable about single organisms since 150 years ago!!! Nothing of organisms makes sense except in the light of it's reproduction, it's what pulls all the knowledge about the organism together.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu