natural selection is wrong

http://www.philosophy.ubc.ca/faculty/matthen/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}Basicly the paper referenced argues that lightningstrikes, or events which are equally likely to happen to each variant, should be understood to be part of the operation of natural selection, and that to separate these kinds of events from the operation of natural selection is against the rules which are known to apply in physics.It then concludes with a formulation of natural selection which equates population evolution with selection, as differential retention of variation.But there is another formulation that becomes possible if you allow lightningstrikes to be part of selection theory. If lightningstrikes are part of selection, then there is no logical requirement anymore for variation in the formulation of selection. The inclusion of variation in the theory is then simply on the basis of the observation that there is a lot of variation about, and not a neccessary part of the logical argument of selection. Where before the variation played the role of corresponding to a difference in likelyhood to reproduce, which was the core of Darwinist logic, now variation doesn't neccessarily correspond to differences in likelyhood to reproduce.So I propose that selection should basicly be defined as the relationship of the organism to the environment in terms of reproduction, and evolution defined as reproduction with modification.regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-24-2004 11:27 AM

The supposed fault in natural selection, supposedly leads to illegitimate teleology. (obviously this tends to validate my longstanding argument that a fault in natural selection facillitates ideology being derived from it, because teleology facilitates ideology rather well). Faults of teleology in science are never small faults IMO. This paper can't be just dismissed if you would care about the validity of natural selection theory."The idea is that if natural selection were to act on its own, it would achieve optima. Evolution does not always produce optima, however, because natural selection is opposed by constraints.But this is an illegitimately teleological way of conceptualizing the action of natural selection,""So in fact, it is not at all clear that any sense can be made of the idea of natural selection acting as an isolated force, if this means without the intrusion of constraints. (We’ll return to this point in the next section.) What we have here, therefore, is a violation of the Newtonian idea that if an effect is to be analysed in terms of two forces acting together, then a vector value has to be assigned to each acting independently."regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But the choices in selection are reproduction and no reproduction, my argument is as clear as ever, but the point of selection and fitness not understood. Fitness depends on the structure of the organism on the one hand, and the structure of the environment on the other. It is not something that arises solely out of the structure of the organism. Given the parameters there are 4 possible results in a standard natural selection theory scenario of 2 variants, not 2 as you imply with choice.A-B+
A+B+
A-B-
A+B-The standard theory has too many choices, rather then that the cut down theory has nothing to choose.regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 05-25-2004 03:32 AM

I think it might be argued that lightningstrikes have the same probabililty of affecting reproductive rate of organisms corresponding to their sameness. So then it would be comparitive after all, but comparing in terms of how much they are the same.So I can accuse you of ignoring sameness of organisms, much as you accuse me of ignoring differences between organisms, and organisms in a population are a lot more the same then they are different.But I think this is all besides the point. I am ignoring differences because I am only focused on cause and effect relationships, and this is the preferrable way to do science IMO. Simply looking at what affects reproduction of the organism, and if a variant happens to influence that reproduction, directly or indirectly, then I would notice variation in that respect, as an environmental selective factor on the organism described. As a basic formulation of selection, this is unbeatable by the standards in science, because of it's general applicability, the uniformity of it's application, and the focus on physical relationships.When somebody in this thread says that the mechanism of natural selection causes diversity, then that is complete nonsense if we understand comparison of reproductive success to cause anything whatsoever. Comparisons cause nothing, and standard natural selection is a comparison. Mutations or recombinations of the heriditary material cause an organism to be different then it's ancestor. Once we admit that this is the cause of change, the only thing left is to describe if the mutant or recombination spreads / reproduces, and then you have a complete description of evolution already.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well now I have a paper to more or less back up my position, why don't you address the paper?I'm not absolutely clear about what the paper says, but it seems to say that growth rate is the fundament of the theory of selection, which if I remember correctly, you only saw as proper to population dynamics and not selection."Anthony Edwards reports that this growth-rate theorem was presented by C.C. Li as a simplified version of Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection.It is certainly simplified in that it does not take on board such complications as sexual reproduction, dominance, linkage, ecological change, etc., while Fisher’s theorem and its successors contain parameters that sum up the effect of such factors.Consequently, Li’s theorem cannot be applied to phenotypically defined sub-populations except under special circumstances, only to populations of genes.Despite this limitation, Li’s theorem highlights the essential nature of selection. What it says, in effect, is that when the different sub-types within a population grow at different rates, the sub-types that grow faster increase their representation in the whole. Moreover, the speed with which this takes place is proportionate to the variance in the whole. These are fundamental facts about any kind of selection; in effect, Li’s theorem defines selection as change in a population divided by growth rates. This definition, and the mathematical truth on which it rests, is substrate neutral.Li’s theorem is an abstract expression of the effects of differential selection. Taking growth rate as a surrogate for fitness, it is possible to appreciate the intention of Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem: a population increases in fitness proportionate to the genetic variance in fitness among sub-populations. Note that this does not tell us much about vernacular fitness, that is, about the causes of growth in a sub-population, or about progress.In fact, the theorem tells us nothing about the improvement of any given type. The pre-existent type that grows fastest comes in time to dominate the population. This type does not get any better in itself; it just contributes more to the mean growth rate of the population."regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 05-25-2004 05:37 AM

Absolutely I can tell you that if an organism has 10 offspring it is adapted to it's environment, no matter if there are organisms in the same envrironment that reproduce 10.000 times. If this organism that produces 10.000 would in time encroach on the one that reproduces 10 times then the one reproducing 10 times would not be adapted anymore. If an organism reproduces then it is adapted to it's environment of course.But it seems to me the mean reproductive rate always tends to go towards 1 or 0. That is even organisms getting hit by lightning get to be reproduced in a way, because sometime later we can once again see a similar organism being hit by lightning. It is all repeated time after time.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

In a typical natural selection scenario of an allele sweeping to fixation, some environment change occurs, and then the fitness of one type A is dramatically increased, and the fitness of type B is decreased. Then over time the fitness of both types A and B would tend to decrease, the fitness of A tending to go towards 1, and the fitness of B tending to go towards 0. It is a nonsense to say that the individuals in the population are becoming more fit. There is an initial jump in fitness of individuals belonging to type A, and then a general decrease in fitness of individuals of that type, as they increasingly compete with other type A individuals.Obviously I don't see the merit in ignoring offspring that don't get to live until reproductive age. They are organisms and need to be taking into acount of course in calculating a mean average reproduction rate.The above is just to illustrate that Darwinism is detached from reality in it's conception of fitness.If you are so tired of my supposed ignorance on the matter, then why don't you address the paper I referenced in stead?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I do understand what I'm talking about. Reproduction will tend to fill up an environment to capacity. When it arrives at capacity the mean average reproductive rate cannot be larger then 1, obviously, because there aren't any resources anymore in the environment to go over 1.I just don't believe that you don't have the realization that you said some very questionable things. You said that an organism that reproduces is not adapted to it's environment. Such very obviously questionable assumptions should lead to further investigation.Apart from my amateur criticism of selection, I don't understand why you don't concern yourself with more credible professional criticism that natural selection is teleological, and that it violates some principle of physics, as in the paper I referenced.Of course the only way for an amateur to get a grasp of the paper is to have a clear conception of the relationship of the organism to the environment in terms of reproduction. Without such an anchorpoint I'm sure it would be impossible for an amateur to grasp what it is saying, regardless of the fact that the paper doesn't actually explicitly support such a simplified formulation of selection.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This may be an idiosyncratic definition of reproductionrate, but I explained how I was using the definition in using it, so there shouldn't have been any misunderstanding.I am counting *all* individuals in calculating a mean average reproduction rate, not just the ones who live until reproductive age, or something like that. Obviously when the populationsize stays the same, the mean average reproductionrate over all individuals must be one.You could also argue that it must be 2 with sexual reproduction, but then you have overlapping offspring, it would be counting individuals twice.I used this idiosyncratic definition, which seems much straightforward to me actually, to illustrate the binary nature of selection on a populational level, of reproduction or no reproduction, that it tends to go towards 1 or 0.I think this may be clearer if you imagine, like I said before, a population in an environment where everything repeats itself time after time. You see a moth being eaten by a bird, and one repetition later you again see a moth eaten by a bird. The moth being eaten by the bird would still be counted in calculating an average reproductionrate. As you can see, in imagination, that there is one mirror individual between each repetition, you can see that the reproductionrate on average must be one.(edited to add: it helps to imagine the organism just before it's death. as everybody knows all organisms die. The fact that you can see another organism in the same situation in the next repetition must therefore be, because of reproduction)Although of course, nature is never repeated exactly the same in reality, this kind of stability of the relationship of the organism to the environment is also conveniently assumed in standard natural selection theory. There is a change in environment and after the change, the reproductionrate gets recalculated again. That is reproductionrate doesn't get calculated over 2 different environments, but get's calculated seperately for 2 different environments.regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 05-26-2004 07:14 AMThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 05-26-2004 08:50 AM

I already explained this in the first post. The reason for inclusion of variation in Darwinism is because there is supposed to be a difference in likelyhood to reproduce corresponding to variation. What the authors call the core of Darwinist logic. Since the paper includes lightningstrikes as a legitimate example of natural selection, this logic is lost, and therefore the reason to include variation in the definition is lost. So now the reason to include variation is shifted from Darwinist logic, to the observation that there is a lot of variation in populations. If now somebody asks you to explain natural selection, you might say like:take one organism with bad eyesight, and one organism with good eyesight, they are equally likely to be hit by lightning, that is natural selection.As shown, there isn't neccesarily any logic anymore in including variation in the redefined natural selection, it's inclusion becomes tenuous.The view is obviously not diametrically opposed (I wish you would not argue so defensively, how on earth can you say that describing the relationship of an organims to the environment in terms of reproduction is diametrically opposed to *any* formulation of natural selection), the authors have taken away an obstacle to reformulating natural selection without variation.They have said more things that allude to a formulation without variation, as in the part I quoted to you about growthrates, where the authors are saying things like selection is only describing the spreading. (does this sound familiar from a year ago?)About teleology, as far as I can tell the authors see the teleology because of the separation of natural selection from other things like neutral drift. The authors are essentially not arguing some old fault which has been argued before, but they assert that the fault of teleology is directly related to excluding lightningstrikes etc. from natural selection, the new fault which they found.The teleology appears to be that Darwinists conceive of natural selection having the goal of producing optimal fitness. This teleology seems to be based on prejudicially confining oneself to Darwinist logic, of one variant having a higher reproductionrate corresponding to structure."This invites the following question in light of item 2 in the characterization of theories of force in section II: what would happen if selection were to act by itself? For in order to estimate how much of an evolutionary outcome should be ascribed to non-selective constraints, and how much to natural selection, we need first to appreciate the action of the latter acting alone.In the context of the debate about adaptationism, it is clear that the supposed action of natural selection as a single factor is construed in terms of optima. The idea is that if natural selection were to act on its own, it would achieve optima. Evolution does not always produce optima, however, because natural selection is opposed by constraints.But this is an illegitimately teleological way of conceptualizing the action of natural selection, that is, by specifying a result, and a value-laden one at that. (Of course, the critics of adaptationism would say that their opponents bear the blame for this. Still, they seek to mitigate the teleology of their opponents by putting brakes on it. This is not the right move: they should reject the teleological conception right from the start.)"regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I did explain my reasoning, I can only explain it in a more extended way.Natural selection: The black moth is more suited for camouflage to the black tree, then the white moth, so there is a difference in likelyhood to reproduce of the black moth and the white moth, corresponding to their variation.Natural Selection: Either black moth or white moth is equally likely to be hit by lighting, so there is no difference in likelyhood to reproduce corresponding to their variation.I couldn't be bothered to search for a varying trait which actually has no corresponding difference in likelyhood to reproduce, but the principle still holds, and you are failing to argue that obviously the inclusion of variation becomes tenuous in the second explanation of natural selection. Would I be wrong to explain natural selection with a varying trait that has no difference in likelyhood to reproduce? If yes then why, if not then wouldn't this tend to make the inclusion of variation seem pointless?The paper is saying that the standard formulation confined to vernacular fitness is teleological. Where before people like Gould sought to put breaks on the teleological nature of the theory, by referring to neutral drift etc., he should have in stead denied the teleology by uniting neutral selection and adaptive selection in one theory of natural selection, which we must do according to Newton's principles which apply in all sciences. What Darwinists are doing is positing vernacular fitness, and then say that vernacular fitness results in an optimum, except for other factors constraining this optimum. But what Darwinists should do is also posit neutral variation as part of what results in reproductive success (because neutral variation contributes to mean average growthrate as well), and not just posit vernacular variation. It is prejucidial of Darwinists to just posit vernacular variation as what causes differential reproductive success, and the teleology towards optima is a consequence of that prejudice.Essentially this thread is actually supposed to be about the paper referenced. You can ignore my commentary on it, and just solely address the paper."Note that this does not tell us much about vernacular fitness, that is, about the causes of growth in a sub-population, or about progress. In fact, the theorem tells us nothing about the improvement of any given type. The pre-existent type that grows fastest comes in time to dominate the population. This type does not get any better in itself; it just contributes more to the mean growth rate of the population."regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Yes the average rate of reproduction of an individual mosquito is 1, and the average rate of reproduction of a mosquite that belongs to the share of the population that reproduces is 1000 or something.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Again, we are presuming a stable populationsize when a population reaches capacity, a stable relationship of organisms with the environment. You present a populationsize that is volatile, decreasing or something, but you can't calculate standard reproductive rate also with an unstable relationship like that, let alone my "idiosyncratic" reproduction rate. So equally you are arguing against standard definition of reproduction rate now.from your other post:
"The average reproductive rate of an individual in a population of mosquitos would be the total number of offsrping produced divided by the number of individuals in the population"That is actually my definition you are using. Again, the populationsize, or the relationship of the organism to the environment, is presumed to be stable, both in standard definition and in my definition. So since the populationsize stays the same, then if the population is 100, then 100 need to be reproduced, because all organisms die. 100/100=1 . If we would have any more or less then 100 being reproduced, then the population would increase or decrease.You are of course fooling yourself, because you don't actually count all individuals in the population, you are just counting, like I said, those individuals that have reproduced, which may be just 10 of the 100. The actual numbers produced by individual organisms could look like this (6,7,8,9,10,10,11,12,13,14, the 90 other organisms 0) The average rate of reproduction of the individuals that reproduced was then (6+7+8+9+ etc. )/ 10 = 10, the average rate of reproduction of an individual was (6+7+8+9+etc)/100=1. Maybe you are also fooled by Darwinist talk that some survive while other's not survive. That is of course not true in the long run. In the long run *all* die, no organism survives, so to have a stable populationsize, in a way, *all* must be reproduced.As before to talk about sexual reproduction, you have to go into such issues as, if you only contribute half the genes, then should that be counted as one, or half an offspring etc.I'm just limiting myself to the basic observation that seeing how all organisms die, the individuals in the population with the stable populationsize we see when an population reaches capacity, would have an average reproductionrate of 1.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Yes of course in the conclusion the authors have modified natural selection theory already so that it's not teleological anymore!So there you can get away with saying natural selection is not teleological. But the theory everybody still uses is teleological, according to the authors. It's specially noted that both the adaptionists, and the anti-adaptionists are teleological, and this comprises most all Darwinists.Your moth example is too complex again to really say anything. I never said to ignore camouflage of black wingcolor to black tree, and lack of camouflage of white wingcolor to black tree. What I said was that on equal terms you can now also refer to an example of variation with an equal likelyhood to reproduce as an example of natural selection. It is no more or less valid then to have an example of natural selection that is based on variation with differing likelyhood to reproduce. This obviously makes the inclusion of variation seem pointless, while still being a perfectly valid example of natural selection.You also have a very fundamental political problem here if creationists would gee.... posit an example of variation with equal likelyhood to reproduce as a correct example of natural selection.....then gee.... everybody would have some questions about what they have been told for 150+ years..... Of course, creationists also have accepted and taught teleological natural selection for as long as Darwinists did, but confined to micro-evolution.I agree it is meaningless to look at individual lifehistory to look at evolution, as the author's also say in talking about Li's growthrate formulation. IMO the change is a mutation, or a recombination, and the question then becomes limited to does it reproduce, or doesn't it? You can't possibly be saying that it's meaningless to look at individual lifehistory when looking at likelyhood to reproduce, or else you would seem to be denying most basic biology of observing organisms in terms of survival and consequent reproduction. How are biologists supposed to describe any individual moth for instance, when they can't refer to likelyhood of survival / reproduction?I could interpret your words as to say that some sort of exception needs to be made to Newton's principles to accomodate teleological natural selection theory. Newton's principles are asserted to apply in all sciences, they are meant to be conceived of as general principles, and for this reason the authors can refer to them in biology also. I'm not too sure about the explanatory limits of the principles, but natural selection seems to be well within those limits. We aren't talking about a very sophisticated science here, why even an amateur can do most of it...regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No my definition does not assume that all offspring survive to reproduce.I would count the rabbits that get eaten by wolves in calculating a mean average reproduction rate. Assuming that this cycle of rabbit reproduction endlessly repeats itself, assuming that all organisms die, I would read your example as saying that the population on average consists of 500 rabbits, the reproductionrate 1. The population of 100 rabbits you refer to is just the part of the population that reproduces, and this part reproduces 5 on average yes.(or you might be talking about a population which is not at capacity but which is growing in numbers, but growing populations were not at issue. If it was a growing population, then we would see the average reproductionrate drop back to 1 when the population reaches capacity.)regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu