Falsification theory of Natural Selection

Viewing competition as a selective pressure I would
have to concede that it IS part of natural selection.

I agree, I don't see where the difficulty lies. Syamsu seems to want everyone to phrase the definition the same way. This isn't going to happen. Even if the word we were defining was "consensus" it wouldn't happen.Perhaps we could all agree to use the definition of Natural Selection that's in the glossary. Or a formal definition from some other source. I don't think most of us care how the definition is phrased, so long as the definition is correct.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I agree, I don't see where the difficulty lies. Syamsu seems to want everyone to phrase the definition the same way. This isn't going to happen. Even if the word we were defining was "consensus" it wouldn't happen.

​

Perhaps we could all agree to use the definition of Natural Selection that's in the glossary. Or a formal definition from some other source. I don't think most of us care how the definition is phrased, so long as the definition is correct.

​

--Percy

---

I would prefer to phrase it as 'Differential chance of reproduction ..'BUT then I would be being as picky as I feel Syamsu is ... so I'd
be happy to work from the glossary definition

Percy: I don't have any problem with the "definition" in your glossary. It's the description of the process that Syamasu seems to be getting wrapped around the axle about.As far as book definitions go, it depends on who you ask. Donald Levin: U Texas: differential reproduction among differing phenotypes in a population.Ben van der Pluijm: UMich: Natural Selection is the differential reproduction of genotypes.Ernst Mayr: The process by which in every generations individuals of lower fitness are removed from a population.Hmmm, I think I'm starting to see the problem.

Peter and Quetzal,Right, I think we're all pretty much on the same page. While everyone has their own favorite way of defining natural selection, there's widespread general agreement on what it is. When we see someone else's definition we probably say to ourselves, "Well, that's not how *I* would say it, but that's pretty much correct."So I suggest that Syamsu pick some formal definition from somewhere, either from the glossary here or from a textbook or from somewhere on the net, and then assuming it's a decent definition we can all tell Syamsu that we all agree with it and get on with meaningful discussion.I expect one of three things will happen: a) We'll never hear from Syamsu again; b) This proposal isn't acceptable to him because he's certain natural selection is invalid because nobody defines it the same way; c) he accepts the proposal, but after we resume discussion everytime we refer to natural selection in our own words instead of the words of the agreed upon definition he'll point this out as a source of disagreement and error, and we'll be drawn into the same rathole over and over again.--Percy

Take Salmon, they reproduce, and then they all die. Your theory of selection on survival clearly doesn't apply here (or does it?). The ability to survive does not neccesarily increase the probability of reproduction. To say it does is simply false. False and therefore should be discarded, it does not belong in science. In some article I read that was also critical of the lack of rigour in Darwinism (although not on the would-be faults I'm arguing), it pointed out that "science is judgemental". I think that about sums it up.I'm disappointed in the other reactions. Clearly you are being defensive, not even beginning to make arguments in favour of my position.My position is to have a theory of reproduction that is formal, uniformly understood, and focuses on physcial relationships. The new setup is then like this:theory of reproduction=describing individuals in terms of the event of their reproductionselection=for an individual to reproduce or not to reproduce
(realisation of the chance of reproduction of an individual to zero or one)To put the focus on physical relationships the formulation of differential reproductive success should largely be discarded. This would be replaced with a number of subset theories to the general theory of reproduction, that describe the physical relationships between individuals in terms of the event of their reproduction. Like competition etc.It is generally understood to be better to have formal and uniformly understood theories that focus on physical relationships. Do I have to argue why this is better then the contrary? I hope not.Actually the main reason I argue for this is to sustain the ideal of neutrality in science. The lack of formalcy corresponds with an abundance in making valuejudgements as part of Darwinism, by many "lay" people, but also by the most influential Darwinist scientists themselves in their main works.In the chapter on evolution in the textbook of the teacher Scopes of the famous monkey trial, it reads that the highest race are the Caucasians represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and the USA. In other words, all the would be do-gooders on the evolution side were advancing the right of a government to teach racist slop, and have children confirm that racist slop on any test on the subject.One of the reasons that this racist slop is in the textbook, is because of the lack of formalcy in the works of the likes of Darwin. Darwin's common sense talk about the races of man encroaching on one another as some kind of ancient law of nature, and his constant use of higher and lower, facillitates these sort of quasi scientific valuejudgements.BTW the point about me saying that evolution can happen within a generation, is because John said that evolution only applies on multiple generations.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

​

[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 06-12-2002]

Syamsu writes:

---

The ability to survive does not neccesarily increase the probability of reproduction.

---

Sure it does, by simple logic. The longer an organism survives the more opportunities it will have to reproduce. Increased likelihood of survival means increased probability of reproduction.

---

Clearly you are being defensive, not even beginning to make arguments in favour of my position.

---

This is a debate. That means we argue for our positions and you argue for yours.

---

theory of reproduction=describing individuals in terms of the event of their reproduction

​

selection=for an individual to reproduce or not to reproduce

---

I think in the end you'd just end up with the principle of natural selection.

---

To put the focus on physical relationships the formulation of differential reproductive success should largely be discarded.

---

Since an organism's success in life is measured by the number of offspring produced, differential reproductive comparisons are the obvious way to measure success. For example, say in successive years the cheetah/zebra populations on an African preserve were 100/10,000, 90/11,000, 80/12,000, then the zebras are outcompeting the cheetahs. Zoologists can analyze such population changes, taking into account fecundity, mortality rates and hosts of other factors in great numerical detail.

---

In the chapter on evolution in the textbook of the teacher Scopes of the famous monkey trial, it reads that the highest race are the Caucasians represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and the USA. In other words, all the would be do-gooders on the evolution side were advancing the right of a government to teach racist slop, and have children confirm that racist slop on any test on the subject.

---

It sounds like your objection to evolution is emotionally based upon historical interpretations rather than upon an assessment of the current state of the theory.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Take Salmon, they reproduce, and then they all die. Your theory of selection on survival clearly doesn't apply here (or does it?).

---

If they ALL die there was no selection ... if some survived
THEN there is selection.The above (your example) illustrates why Natural Selection is
NOT about reproduction, but rather survival.In the above, there no individual has an advantage over another,
so there is no differential reproductive success, and hence
no natural selection (in THAT situation).Natural selection does NOT occur constinuously ... only when
there is a genetic variation within a population that gives
some individuals a survival advantage over others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

The ability to survive does not neccesarily increase the probability of reproduction. To say it does is simply false. False and therefore should be discarded, it does not belong in science.

---

The probability of reproduction is greater if you have more time
in which to reproduce.If you live longer than another individual, you have more time,
and so more opportunity to reproduce.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

In some article I read that was also critical of the lack of rigour in Darwinism (although not on the would-be faults I'm arguing), it pointed out that "science is judgemental". I think that about sums it up.

---

Is the article on-line (or do you have a reference) ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I'm disappointed in the other reactions. Clearly you are being defensive, not even beginning to make arguments in favour of my position.

---

That's because we disagree with you

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

My position is to have a theory of reproduction that is formal, uniformly understood, and focuses on physcial relationships. The new setup is then like this:

​

theory of reproduction=describing individuals in terms of the event of their reproduction

​

selection=for an individual to reproduce or not to reproduce
(realisation of the chance of reproduction of an individual to zero or one)

---

Reproduction does not happen once in a life-time ... unless the
individual involved dies after only one offspring.The 'chance of reproduction' in your post, would have to be
based upon breeding capability.e.g.Organism A, unihindered has a lifespan of Y years, and is
capable of producing O offspring per year.MAX[offpring of A] = O * YThe actual life span of any individual A(i), is Y(i) years.So::Num. Offspring A(i) = O * Y(i)Some individuals are more fit to the environment than others.A(1) lives for 6 years because it can eat green or red berries
A(2) lives for 3 years because it can only eat green berries and they run out.O = 3 offspring per yearA(1) produces 3 * 6 = 18 offspring
A(2) produces 3 * 3 = 9 offspringThere is differential reproductive success between A(1) and
A(2) purely becuase of survival.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

To put the focus on physical relationships the formulation of differential reproductive success should largely be discarded. This would be replaced with a number of subset theories to the general theory of reproduction, that describe the physical relationships between individuals in terms of the event of their reproduction. Like competition etc.

​

It is generally understood to be better to have formal and uniformly understood theories that focus on physical relationships. Do I have to argue why this is better then the contrary? I hope not.

---

Natural selection does focus on a physical relationship.The relationship between longevity and breeding potential.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Actually the main reason I argue for this is to sustain the ideal of neutrality in science. The lack of formalcy corresponds with an abundance in making valuejudgements as part of Darwinism, by many "lay" people, but also by the most influential Darwinist scientists themselves in their main works.

---

In what way is natural selection not neutral as a concept ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

In the chapter on evolution in the textbook of the teacher Scopes of the famous monkey trial, it reads that the highest race are the Caucasians represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and the USA. In other words, all the would be do-gooders on the evolution side were advancing the right of a government to teach racist slop, and have children confirm that racist slop on any test on the subject.

---

This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution or natural
selection.It has to do with the mis-use of data for political ends.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

One of the reasons that this racist slop is in the textbook, is because of the lack of formalcy in the works of the likes of Darwin. Darwin's common sense talk about the races of man encroaching on one another as some kind of ancient law of nature, and his constant use of higher and lower, facillitates these sort of quasi scientific valuejudgements.

---

That's more to do with the values and beliefs of the time, than
anything inherent in the ToE.Bear in mind that the concept of man as superior to other
animals comes from the bible and not from evolutionary theory.Some narrow minded, unsrupulous politicians have used this
fundamentally western world view and extrapolated it onto the races
of man to serve their own ends.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

BTW the point about me saying that evolution can happen within a generation, is because John said that evolution only applies on multiple generations.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

​

[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 06-12-2002]

---

Evolution can only happen to a population over time and a number
of generations.An individual organism cannot be said to evolve ... only
the species to which it belongs.

Natural Selection acts "on" sexual selection. Sure you all know it, and may be I'm out of the discussion.
The factors that, "in exclusive relation to reproduction, make some individuals to have advantages over others of the same species", are mainly of two types: 1)Those derived for male competition to access a female, and, 2)those derived from female choice of the male partner. The result are the "secondary sexual characters", sometimes so exaggerated that it has been questioned to be the result of Natural Selection.
Nevertheless I think all modern observations and experiments seem to strengthen the idea that what the females are really choosing are advantageous genetics traits. Fittest genome can only be searched through these external traits. In this regard is very interesting the hypothesis of Hamilton and Zuk, relating the evolution of male ornaments with resistance to parasites.
So in the end sexual selection is also the selective reproduction of the fittest.

While I agree that some creatures choose mates based upon characteristics such as tail-feathers or nest building ability
I still think it is most useful to think of natural selection
in terms of survival of the fittest.There are plenty of critters where the selection of a mate is not
based upon any obvious physical chracteristic.A male lion mates with all mature females in the pride ... the
selection happened when the male lion and his friend proved
stronger than the former lead male, and then killed all the
cubs.The fact that the young males survived long enough to do this,
roaming the wilderness hunting together has already proved their
fittness without the presence of females.I'm sure this sort of behaviour is by no means uncommon in the
animal kingdom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
While I agree that some creatures choose mates based upon characteristics such as tail-feathers or nest building ability
I still think it is most useful to think of natural selection
in terms of survival of the fittest.

​

---

Good point.How about "natural selection is the selection of traits that ultimately result in increased likelyhood of reproduction?This includes both survival fitness & mate selection. D. Futuyma describes ns (after some discussion, as "any consistent difference in fitness (ie survival & reproduction) among phenotypically different biological entities." (Evolutionary Biology. Third Ed. p349 Douglas J. Futuyma). He goes on to note that heritability is implicit in the definition.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Good point.

​

How about "natural selection is the selection of traits that ultimately result in increased likelyhood of reproduction?

​

This includes both survival fitness & mate selection. D. Futuyma describes ns (after some discussion, as "any consistent difference in fitness (ie survival & reproduction) among phenotypically different biological entities." (Evolutionary Biology. Third Ed. p349 Douglas J. Futuyma). He goes on to note that heritability is implicit in the definition.

​

Mark

​

---

That'll do me as a definition for NS.

Your idea of a good debate is much like that of a defense lawyer in a trial. I would be very surprised if such a debate ever leads to mutual understanding. Specially since you are an administrator, I wish you would be more enlightened then that.Your logic is false. We should expect creatures to live longer and longer by your theory, but this is not what we see. Creatures live for diverse periods of time, the length of which is a trait of the creature. This trait of how long it lives, can be interpreted in terms of it's chance of reproduction, or it's reproductioncycle.Zebra's are just one of many environmental factors to Cheetahs, and should "obviously" only be mentioned in so far as they influence the reproduction of the Cheetah. 80/25, 90/30, 120/35. Where the first is the number of cheetahs, and the second is the average temperature over some time. Why Darwinists put exclusive focus on the reproductive rate of another organism like Zebra's, in stead of comparing with something like the weather, is unexplained to me.The ideal of neutrality in science is emotionally based, so in that sense I guess you're right to say that my argument is emotionally based. The standards of formalcy in Darwinism are as low now, as they were in the beginning(Dawkins influential selfish gene version of Natural Selection comes to mind).I'd like some response of creationist-Darwinists to what I'm arguing. I think I got the evolutionist Darwinist point of view by now.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Zebra's are just one of many environmental factors to Cheetahs, and should "obviously" only be mentioned in so far as they influence the reproduction of the Cheetah. 80/25, 90/30, 120/35. Where the first is the number of cheetahs, and the second is the average temperature over some time. Why Darwinists put exclusive focus on the reproductive rate of another organism like Zebra's, in stead of comparing with something like the weather, is unexplained to me.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

What? The weather directly affects the cheetahs life. Who is saying it doesn't? If it snows for a year = no more cheetahs. Failing rains, more likely, will directly affect cheetah populations.Not sure of your point here. You seem to be complaining of something non-existent.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Syamsu writes:

---

Your idea of a good debate is much like that of a defense lawyer in a trial.

---

There's a set of Forum Guidelines that prevent defense lawyer tactics. Suggestions for improvements are welcome.

---

I would be very surprised if such a debate ever leads to mutual understanding.

---

Well, improved mutual understanding is the goal. If you have suggestions for how better to achieve that then you can send me email at admin@ or post ideas to the suggestions forum.If you're looking for help developing your ideas then you're certainly getting it, but I don't think that's what you're looking for. You seem more to be looking for validation of and agreement with your ideas rather than criticisms of them. Instead of accepting the feedback and using it to improve your ideas you simply keep arguing that natural selection as currenly defined is *too* wrong and why don't we just admit it and give you a pat on the back for pointing it out.

---

Specially since you are an administrator, I wish you would be more enlightened then that.

---

I play two roles here, and unless I sign off as "EvC Forum Administrator" then I'm just another debater.Much of the feedback you've gotten expresses a belief that you don't yet understand what you're criticizing. Your review of one of Dawkin's books over at Amazon reflects the same misunderstanding, and this reflects another:

---

Zebra's are just one of many environmental factors to Cheetahs, and should "obviously" only be mentioned in so far as they influence the reproduction of the Cheetah. 80/25, 90/30, 120/35. Where the first is the number of cheetahs, and the second is the average temperature over some time. Why Darwinists put exclusive focus on the reproductive rate of another organism like Zebra's, in stead of comparing with something like the weather, is unexplained to me.

---

I was providing an example in support of the "differential reproduction" version of the natural selection definitions, not enumerating the the possible causes of the differential success. Your unfamiliarity with evolutionary theory is showing when you say you think scientists ignore climatic factors.

---

The ideal of neutrality in science is emotionally based,...

---

Is English a second language for you? Sometimes your vocabulary is a bit unusual.I think you're actually referring to objectivity in science, the question of how subjective and emotional creatures like humans can hope to arrive at objective assessments. While complete objectivity is only an ideal, science is able to achieve objectivity because of it's consensual nature that involves peer review and replication as key facets of the scientific process. Scientists must reveal their ideas to other scientists for review and criticism and describe their methods in sufficient detail that other scientists may replicate them. A new idea gradually becomes accepted within the scientific community as this process unfolds, if it is correct.

---

...so in that sense I guess you're right to say that my argument is emotionally based.

---

The reason I said your argument was emotionally based is because you made emotional (and factually questionable) statements blaming a man who died over a century ago for the current state of evolutionary theory, as if no one had done anything in the interim, and your concomitant confusion of moral issues surrounding the use or misuse of scientific theories for political or other purposes with the science itself.

---

The standards of formalcy in Darwinism are as low now, as they were in the beginning(Dawkins influential selfish gene version of Natural Selection comes to mind).

---

The Selfish Gene is secondary literature. I suggest you examine some of the primary literature, ie, scientific papers. Subscribe to Science or Nature for a year and see if at the end of that time you still think evolution is insufficiently formalized. (By the way, formalcy is not a word.)--Percy