Destroying Darwinism

I'd just have to say that I think natural selection can
apply without population variation. It just wouldn't
be driving evolution.Natural selection is concerned with traits that give some
individuals an advantage in a particular environment. That
could apply to clone populations, but the results would be either
extinction (where there is a poor fit), population limitation
(where there is a moderate fit), and population explosion( where
there is a good fit).All a bit qualitative I know, but if you view natural selection
as being concerned with the relationship between an individual
and it's environment which has an effect on it's reproductive
capacity then you don't actually require variation.Of course without variation you cannot have evolution.

Check out any literature on human populations that mentions
mtDNA and you will see that there are references to base-pair
differences -- that's variation.I have blue eyes, my wife has green eyes, many of my friends
have brown eyes -- that's variation.Populations have variation -- to deny it is to be blind.

Peter:
"no amount of variation will enable species survival"Which means then that it isn't covered by differential reproductive succes of variants, which means that differential reproductive success of variants is generally irrellevant to endangered species. Are you going to go looking for a variant in the endangered species, and compare it with another variant? Again, it doesn't apply, no matter how many times you say it does. Logic dictates that.Sorry Peter, but you are just liar. I can make nothing more of it. You will just persist in having it your way, eventhough clearly you're wrong.Obviously to know what helps and inhibits the reproduction of an organism is the main thing people who are looking at endangered species want to know, yet you invalidate that way of looking at organisms, just because you want to defend some more prosaic theory.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No ... again.You are discussing two different things.If I wish to know about apples it is pointless to look
at electric motors.Conservationists (and other field biologists) already look
at what an organism needs for survival and reproduction.That is not the subject matter of natural selection.If you wish to take quotes out of context, do so, but you will
find that most people will view that as a base ploy and an
indication of flailing against just criticism.Natural selection is a description of what is seen in nature.
It is observed to occur.You have had this pointed out with numerous examples for over
a year now, and yet you still deny the reality of it. Who is
being untruthful?No amount of variation can accomodate rapid environmental changes
otherwise dinosaurs would still walk the earth (and in all liklihood
we would not be).Natural selection is not the be-all and end-all of biology, it is
the nechanism by which evolution is supposed to progress.There IS variaiton within populations, and sometimes such
variation can confer a survival advantage to those individuals
who carry the trait. The natural consequence of this is that
they will leave behind more offspring than those that do not
survive as long (or at least have a good chance of doing so).You will doubtless now start bleating about the pointlessness
of comparisons, and of differential reproductive success.Do you ever actually think anything through?Sorry for the sharp tone, but your bull-like stubborness is somewhat
tiring.

Okay, Syamasu. Since you know all there is to know about ecology and conservation biology, please explain the relationship between the factors which "inhibit reproduction" as you state, population dynamics, ecosystem degradation and habitat fragmentation with reference to the CITES Appendix I species Indri indri.Otherwise, simply admit you know sod all about ecology, biology and conservation.

You're just trying to turn this into something about authority, trying to avoid actually engaging in argument. You still haven't provided any justification at all for including variation. Crashfrog did provide one, the one that Darwin also provided, which was then refuted, or actually crashfrog discarded his own justification.You have to describe how the size interacts with the environment, and basically what you're saying is that it survives longer then the smaller ones, and therefore reproduces more.So how to describe something like proto-photosynthesis. You would just say like oh the photo-syntesis variants, survive longer and reproduce more then the ones that don't have it. You will simply not talk about how photosynthesis relates to light. Therefore your science is essentially empty of meaning.You also avoided to address that Natural Selection is about persistence. The paper still leaves it open for there to be small variants which have stable reproductioncycles.I made the reference to the sheep with 5 legs, and then you called that saltation. How do you believe the genetic basis for legs to be organized anyway? It seems you believe that each leg has a completely different genetic basis, in stead of the legs using the same genetic basis, or similar genetic basis. That's the only way I can understand your insistence on gradualism in opposition to sheep with 5 legs. Of course the genetic difference between 4 and 5 legged sheep can be quite small, so apparently you don't use a genetic definition for gradualism. Your notion of gradualism is then completely from pre-Mendellian times.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

differential reproductive success of variants is generally irrellevant to endangered species.

---

It depends on the nature and rapidity of the endangerment.If a species is being hunted to extinction by man, then short of
developing bullet-proofness or invisibility it is unlikely to
survive without help.If a species is heading for extinction because the water-ways are
polluted, then there is the slim possibility that some
individuals may be more tolerant to the pollutants and thus leave
offspring with this tendancy in greater numbers.If a species is heading for extinction because we are mowing down
it's trees then those individuals who have the best ability to survive
without trees will be the parents for the next generation.In short species adaptability is limited by the rate and magnitude of
the environmental change (take a fish and put it in a desert for
example). Within certain change limits natural selection will be seen
quite readily -- and has been documented!!Natural selection does not have endangered species as its subject matter in the same way that gravitational theory doesn't.

Ah you acknowledge selection without variation, yet you want the standard definition to include variation, completely against the principles in organizing knowledge efficiently. Of course your position is full of duplicity, acknowledging it, but at the same time not stating it in the standard definition.You can have evolution without variation, since you can simply refer to mutation or recombination as the evolution. Typically creationists are more common-sensical about that. So Truthlover what do you think? Is the mutation that results in black wingcolor it's evolution, or is the comparitive rate of reproduction of white vs black moths when the trees are blackened, the evolution of black wingcolor?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Mere authority again. One can just see Konrad Lorenz mouthing of to everyone, that they don't know what they're talking about, eventhough when they provide some specific argumentation.If we want to save a species, then we should know what helps and hinders it to reproduce. That is the maing thing conservationist want to know. Engage my argument here or otherwise just don't post.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

So you acknowledge that Natural Selection can apply without reference to variation, yet you will not use Natural Selection with endangered species. That is preposterous, that you acknowledgt it's validity, but then don't use it.Selection applies to endangered species, the organisms are being selected against, they are becoming maladapted.Are white moths adapted to white trees, only when there are black moths in the population? It seems you will only say they are adapted when there also black moths, eventhough you acknowledge it is valid to use the theory without referring to a variant.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As I have said before, natural selection is uninteresting without
variation. Evolution cannot be progressed via natural selection
without variation.Mutation is a variation isn't it?Evolution looks at the species level, not the individual.One individual with a variation (like black wings) is a mutant
(let's call it Rogue ). When it's generation reproduces,
and Rogue produces more black winged moths we have the
beginnings of a black-winged sub-population. If we have a set
of environmental conditions that favour black wings, we will
get predominantly black-winged moths, if the conditions favour
white winged then we will get predominantly white winged moths,
if there is no real difference we will get a broadly equal mixture
depending on the heritability of the trait.Individuals do not evolve ... they cannot, since their genetic
make-up is set at fertilisation. We may get copy errors in our
cells along the way, but they are not going to make change into
something different.Populations evolve ... and if generation X is sufficiently different
from generation 0 then we have a new species.In short without the mutation (variation) evolution cannot
occur, but one mutant does not an evolutionary change make.

Authority? Remember, YOU were the one that claimed all anyone needed to know about conservation of endangered species was some babble about reproduction. So back up your claim or shut up about a subject on which you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever.

Looking at endangered species is uninteresting?You say Natural Selection without variation is valid, one such instance is endangered species, and then you say it's not interesting.Or maybe you're saying looking at endangered species in the context of selection is uninteresting. So it's valid to say white moths are being selected against, when there are black moths in the population, yet you would not say they are being selected against if there are no black moths in the population, because that is an unnteresting way of using selection. It's ridiculous.Apparently a single mutation is also not interesting enough to look at, eventhough we know that through the operation of controlgenes small mutations can have large phenotypical effects.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Behold the textbook creationist. Syam-sue, you have just included a number of standard creationist tactics in your last response. Lets enumerate them for our studio audience.
1) Accusation of Plea from Authority. This one is generally, but not always followed at some point by pointing to the bible, Koran. Holy scroll or voice from above as the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY. Syam-sue employs a nice variation here but it is still the same old thing.

quote:

---

You're just trying to turn this into something about authority, trying to avoid actually engaging in argument. You still haven't provided any justification at all for including variation. Crashfrog did provide one, the one that Darwin also provided, which was then refuted, or actually crashfrog discarded his own justification.

---

Actually Syam-sue what I presented you with was data but that actually leads to your blending of Plea from Authority with
#2) Mis-statement of presented data.

quote:

---

You have to describe how the size interacts with the environment, and basically what you're saying is that it survives longer then the smaller ones, and therefore reproduces more.

---

when what was said was not survive longer but

quote:

---

Individuals metamorphosing at a large size had an increased chance of survival during the following terrestrial stage

---

i.e. they had MORE survive. I also included a summary of data gathered fro the web concerning the reproductive rates and sexual section effects. Please not that this was data and not as Syam-sue cries a plea from authority. The paper also described some of effects and relationships of size and the increased fitness to survival of froglets vs environment (ex. Being trapped in colder water) with respect to predetation and the relationship to the froglets arthropod prey. In other words, a number of the factors that MADE size a relevant factor in fitness. It also illustrated, much better than I could describe, WHY variation can play a role in selection. As I described earlier. Some of the variation was form genetics.
Now we move on to creationit tactic number 3, misrepresentation

quote:

---

I made the reference to the sheep with 5 legs, and then you called that saltation.

---

Now, while this one may be an honest error on Syam-Sue’s part, namely he could have thought that my reference to Salty that is a bit of a stretch. However, as we already know that Syam has reading comprehension problems I can see where he made his error. I have already pointed out the real first mention of saltationism in my last post
He continues with his misrepresentation here by setting up some of the most ridiculous strawmen that I have seen in a while

quote:

---

How do you believe the genetic basis for legs to be organized anyway? It seems you believe that each leg has a completely different genetic basis, in stead of the legs using the same genetic basis, or similar genetic basis. That's the only way I can understand your insistence on gradualism in opposition to sheep with 5 legs. Of course the genetic difference between 4 and 5 legged sheep can be quite small, so apparently you don't use a genetic definition for gradualism. Your notion of gradualism is then completely from pre-Mendellian times.

---

When what he was really talking about in his four leg vs three leg comment was variation or at least his poor understanding of it. I guess that an sheep with legs an couple of inches longer and with muscle insertion points that generate a greater force per square inch can not run any faster than sheep with shorter legs and less force per square inch; or wait a minute, is this what variation is all about. As to the rest of his misrepresentation, here is a little info concerning Mendelian genetics, particulate genetic inheritance vs. particulate phenotypic expression or
non-particulate expression, ie blended phenotype with particulate genotype phenotype , the examples of mixed, incomplete or blended phenotypic expression are down near the bottom of the presentation including a gradation of a specific phenotype.I told you boy that if you even attempted to play at teaching me genetics and biochem that I would slap you down. Take your lying creationist crap away and please go learn some science. Here endeth the lesson.To the people who dislike the tone of this post, I dislike it as well. However I dislike someone misrepresenting my statements even more.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 05-28-2003]

S, do you take "competition" then to the refractance of light itself which might as well be thought of in Newton's terms in terms of biology which I can discuss further in terms of death WITHOUT competition due to the INTERVAL of tansient fits ONCE ACTUAL INFINTIY be provided for for NS could by CELL DEATH summed (in theory) even extend to the QM level but like the others I have summarily confused precisely what distance this is you wish the board to run with.Darwin's view seems to me to be wholly/largely interms of competition on the individual organism level but the catastrophically seems to me that by working on the molecules from the phenomenology of the cell the juggernaout of Gould and Dawkins changed issue of individuals by extremes of selection levels for any heirarchy MAY indeed result purely from the physical which Gould mistook, in my view, for "physics" envy regardless with SLOW time the neo-Darwinian contingency can continue to enter into this discussion but unless you also specify WHY THE PHYSICAL IS PROBABLY not the biological in this case those of us with some real good grasp of the biology involved can continue to be confused even say if one wanted and does disagree with me for instance. Weinberg made it clear to me and so he would to others that physicsits have not as of yet had any interest in the path changes of elementary particles prior to Wolfram and have a position that BOTH uses Darwinian Contingency and any Node for the space of what I referred to under word "interval" above is actually making an evolutionary position that not only is more unassiable than a belief in GOD makes creationism look VERY good. Which is good in my book and I would hope the life of others but I KNOW that my position is not the norm. Maybe times will change.