natural selection is wrong

WK, One wonders why he asked for a citation in the first place?I've followed this thread closely, as I suspect many of us have. I strongly suspect I wasn't the only one to get a sense of deja vu every other post, either. Syamsu is a total waste of time, he claims to have rebutted natural selection without knowing what it is & what it was formulated for. He criticises Dawkins without having read any of his books in their entirety (see the comment on altruism & selfishness) then wonders why others point out he is quoting out of context. If your lucky, he'll go so far as to read a review of the book, & base his opinions of the content upon that, rather than read it (I shit you not, ask him about Goulds Structure of Evolutionary Theory). It is this mentality that leads him to ask for a full citation & then not read it. This is exactly why his misconceptions are perpetuated; he refuses to learn from relevant information that in some cases he asks for!You had him on the ropes when he asked for the cites you gave, or he wouldn't have asked for them. Make no mistake, he didn't ask for them so he could be intellectually edified, he asked for them because he didn't think you could provide them. Why else would he ask for them and not read them? This is the reason Syamsu cannot learn, he is blind to anything that contradicts him, in true creationist style.He'll be back in six months to a year spouting the same nonsense. He'll probably arrive chock full of misunderstandings based on a paper written by an art department somewhere. He'll last as long as it takes to get him in a corner where he has to ask for citations that he thinks you can't provide. He won't read them, & his opponent will give up in frustration. So it goes on.......It boils down to Syamsu wanting to look at NS from an individuals POV. It matters not to him that it makes studying, & even explaining the effects of natural selection in this way difficult, & in some cases impossible. Evolutionarily stable strategies, maintainence of variation, change in, or stability of gene frequencies are phenomena that Syamsu would have science remove the efficacy of explanation from. Why? How does this further our understanding rather than limit it?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

You are fudging the issue of talking about the fundaments of a theory, by referencing those complex papers. The paper I referenced before also had an extremely simplified theoretical example of lightning strikes, that is how fundaments of a theory are supposed to be explored, because it provides clarity. Bluntly, my way of exploring is correct and yours is wrong.Besides I already dismissed one of the papers you referenced with good argumentation. You said that it covers extinction, while in the abstract it makes no mention what is causing the bearded vulture to become extinct. It is therefore lousy as a paper on extinction, and is most probably not meant to be interpreted as such. You don't actually address many points I've made.The fundamental theory is the filter of reproduction or no reproduction. A mutation happens, and it is "tested" by the environment in terms of fitness to reproduce, it is rejected or accepted. How you can deny that this is a valid theory, but affirm in quite absolute terms that one variant reproducing more then another variant is a valid theory, probably has to do with loyalty to the tradition of Darwinism, rather then any argument whatsoever.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Right yes, I will look at NS or genetic drift or anything else, from an individuals point of view.But you are wrong that this would exclude anything from science, it would just make the things already in the science more understandable, then when it is all based on a view of comparison of variants, which leads to much error and deception, and tends to exclude many observations.Notice that the bearded vulture is becoming extinct in regards to traits *all vultures share* which don't work anymore to reproduce. Since you are constricted to view in terms of variance, and not in terms of traits that are the same, you have a highly peculiar view on this extinction.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

If you think the paper you referenced has a very 'simplified' approach to anything then you clearly didn't understand the paper, although now I think about it we have already established fairly well that you didn't understand the paper.You can't dismiss a whole research paper simply based on something not being in the abstract, that is certainly not 'good argumentation', you should at least read the whole thing, why not focus on the other paper which is not only freely available but also covers four different examples? You are quite capable of a bit of selection of your own when it suits your purposes, neh?It's not just no reproduction or reproduction, it is also 'how much reproduction'. What you have described is certainly fundamental to natural selection in as much as it concerns whether a given individual reproduces or not but it is not the whole of it, it is simply one of the parts which theories of NS/ evolution act to sum.The problem with your conception is that you can only have a simplistic 0 or 1 value for 'fitness to reproduce' which is useless in modelling successive generations and which provides no information useful for the study of evolution.I should have thought that with such a simple and fundamental theory as yours you could at least be able to give us an example of how it might be used in an evolutionary study, I should think that was the least one would expect of a theory which removes the need to think in terms of natural selection. Why not rebutt my criticisms in this direct way rather than snide assertions of evasion on my part and dismissing papers I provide as evidence to support my position without even reading them.TTFN,WK

Dear Mark,I am very aware of Syamsu's style of debate and his appraoch to explaining his ideas. I go on with it because I keep hoping that he will eventually define his terms and explain his theory in enough detail and in simple enough terms that we can finally find out if it is any use for anything or just a mental aberration.Maybe it was my discussion with Kofh2u about Avogadro's number that made me think it was worth trying with Syamsu again. Kof2hu seemed to have a similar appraoch initially but he was at least susceptible of actually explaining his basic reasoning if you pinned him down hard enough.I have already had this discussion with Syamsu on at least 2 other threads and I try to keep my tone reasonable and keep the debate on the level of the actual science. Unfortunately without a clearer idea of what Syamsu is actually proposing all of the scientific discussion is firmly centered around Natural Selection and Syamsu refuses to actually look at, or indeed learn anything about, the relevant science.I can appreciate his pleas that the papers I referenced are too complex for him, the problem is that the papers he references are also clearly too complex for him as is apparent through his frequent misinterpretation of their meaning.I am still hopeful that even if Syamsu won't ever agree that there is a need for Natural selection he might provide me enough detail of his own theories that I can content myself with knowing what, if anything, they might actually be good for.I'm not determined to show Syamsu the error of his ways, although I will correct him when he says something demonstrably wrong, I just want to understand what the hell he thinks he is talking about!TTFN,WK

No you haven't actually established that I misunderstood the paper. You just like to say it, because all you are left with is arguing credibility, in various ways.What rubbish you are now trotting out is all just talk after the debate has taken place. The actual debate was finished IMO when the issue was narrowed down to a single point of organization of knowledge.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You said in the opening post In actual fact what the paper showed was that the various events which contribute to determine the exact genetic constitution of the subsequent generations could not be easily split up and analysed as if they were classical Newtonian forces and that all of the various factors acting on the population, including genetic drift etc., should be considered part of natural selection. It then went on to suggest that the proper analogies for natural selection were to be found in probabilistic models such as those for thermodynamics.It does not say trying to seperate these events is 'against the rules which are known to apply in physics', simply that they cannot be seperated in such a way as to correspond to simple Newtonian force laws. You have never addressed this point or my similar line of questioning regarding your claims that This is certainly never asserted in the paper and you have provided no reason why anyone should think that anyone, other than you, has ever asserted it.This was one of the more egregious misunderstandings you had towards the paper, and without understanding these fairly fundamental aspects of the paper you can make no claim to have understood it, unless you understood it and are simply misrepresenting it intentionally.You may wish to simply declare victory and give up, but I doubt anyone other than you is going to agree with you that that is what has happened here.TTFN,WKP.S. I think you could probably argue that absoloutely any disagreement could be described as a point of organisation of knowledge. The debate was not narrowed down, you just chose not to actually address any of the other points I made.

I never addressed it, because it is an irrellevant point of credibility you are pursuing."they cannot be seperated in such a way as to correspond to simple
Newtonian force laws.""to separate these kinds of events from the operation of natural selection is against the rules which are known to apply in physics."It basicly says the same thing, you have no point.Note that the subject of this thread is the *fault* in natural selection theory, as from the paper. It is not essentially about the new formulation of natural selection that they offer. I limited myself to describing the fault they have found, so you have no case that I didn't cover their new formulation of natural selection.Since Darwinists explained their theory in terms of forces, the Newtonian principles applied, because they apply generally, and not limited to physics. Note that the authors reduced natural selection to Li's fundamental theorem about population growth, which also applies in all sciences.Later on I did make an argument distinct from the authors about why it was faulty to separate natural selection from genetic drift into separate theories. That it is just a matter of organization of knowledge that events which are equally likely to occur to variants, should be in the same fundamental theory as events which are not equally likely to occur to variants, and extended from that events which are equally likely to happen to same should also be included. Maybe you are confused that you thought I had presented it as the authors argument.But who cares where the argument comes from, you simply have to address it as presented on account of the evidence, and not on account of exegesis of Darwin, Fischer, the paper, or anything. There is a very strong tendency in the debate over natural selection to always come back to the issue of interpretation of a reference, which practice betrays underlying credibility issues I suspect.----
And oh yeah, I forgot to address that you once again trotted out your old suggestion, that my way of looking at things is unusable. It is actually already the mainstay of biology, because to describe individual lifehistory is the mainstay of biology. In most all descriptions of species in biology books most all variation is simply ignored fully. They just describe the reproduction cycle of a sample organism from the species.regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 06-10-2004 10:41 AM

quote:

---

Later on I did make an argument distinct from the authors about why it was faulty to separate natural selection from genetic drift into separate theories.
  —Syamsu

---

I may have missed your argument, but I do want to comment on this position.Genetic drift is fitness neutral. Natural selection is a very important factor when looking at genetic drift. Think of it this way. What causes the accumulation of more neutral mutations within the population than beneficial or detrimental mutations?Firstly, detrimental mutations are directly filtered out through natural selection. This is pretty straightforward.Secondly, beneficial mutations are rare, and so their accumulation in the population should be less than both detrimental and neutral mutations. However, beneficial mutations are accumulated (ie kept) because of natural selection.Thirdly, neutral mutations are accumulated because they neither benefit nor harm the fitness of the individual. However, to determine if a mutation is neutral, it must FIRST pass through the filter of natural selection. A neutral mutation in one environment may be a beneficial or detrimental mutation in a different mutation. The only way to judge is to compare the new variant against the environment.So the effect of natural selection is to cause genetic drift through the disproportionate accumulation of neutral mutations. While genetic drift will not cause the ability to interbreed within the population, it might result in an inability to interbreed with other populations that were once interfertile. That is, genetic drift can result in speciation for a population that is split into two, isolated populations.

You are without doubt the most shameless person I have ever met.I will address the meat of your post shortly but first please show in any way that* The two statements you quoted are equivalent.* Darwinists in general use theories of evolution in which selective pressures are thought of as analogous to Newtonian forces.* Li's theorem applies in all sciences.* Newtons laws of motion apply in all sciences.TTFN,WK

Dear Syamsu,To directly address your post. The paper does not address a general fault in the theory of natural selection, it addresses 2 things. Firstly and foremostly it addresses the theory put forward by Sober that evolution can be thought of as a process analogous to Newtonian mechanics. In the first footnote in section II it says... Sober may have wanted his ideas incorporated into general theories of natural selection, there is nothing in the article to suggest that it was.The second and more generally relevant focus was on the principle of teleology, which despite both the papers claims and your own, is mostly restricted to adaptationist theories of evolution. This is just rubbish. That is not how darwinists explain things, the netonian laws of motion clearly don't aplly, nor do they apply generally in science. Li's fundamental theorem does not generally in all sciences apply it specifically applies to subdivided populations, admittedly these can be populations of anything which has a growth rate. No, you made your same old tired arguments about looking at individuals instead of populations, it had no relevance to genetic drift or natural selection. I suggest it betrays your frequent misunderstanding of the scientific literature and peoples frequent attempts to explain things to you. Again you demonstrate the same fallacious reasoning. These descriptions are not drawn from examining one single individual, although a single individual may be the basis for a particular anatomical figure, they are based on the observation of similarities between numerous individuals allow general features to be determined.Almost all of the variation within a species is going to be within the limits of descriptions intended to define that species. You still seem obsessed with sex, the reproductive life cycle is not the be all and end all of biology.TTFN,WK

Your position is based on the idea, that events on same, should be in an entirely different theory, then events on variants, and so on. You splinter the view of things into many different parts. And that would be ok if you would have a fundamental theory to connect all the parts. But in stead you ridicule basic biology, the describing of the reproductioncycle of a sample organism from a specie, which is the one thing that connects all the parts.It's clear that either it is a very stupid fundamental error Darwinists are making, or I am being too simplistic to say that all these theories which view organisms in terms of reproduction should be in the one fundamental theory.So there are some credibility issues with Darwinists making a very stupid fundamental error, which you exploit. But still anyone can decide for themselves if for instance it is wrong or not for Dawkins to hypothesis altruism and selfishness in his highly influential popscience book, or if he should have mentioned mutual benefit and mutual cost in the hypothesis as well. If you decide Dawkins is wrong then.... you would next decide it wrong to postulate events on variants absolutely separately from events on same, and so on.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You seem not to know the first thing about biology beyond the level of general descriptions of an organisms reproductive life cycle. You would be hard put to find a significant proportion of the scientific literature which is simply concerned with an organisms reproductive life cycle. And naturally the obvious answer is that all darwinists are making a stupid fundamental error rather than that you might be being too simplistic in your thinking, this doesn't strike you as being even the tiniest bit arrogant? Which 'all' theories are you thinking of, as I have pointed out all of the situations you have described can be modelled by a combination of population dynamics and population genetics.Dawkins does mention mutual benefit, it is simply referred to as reciprocal altruism. It does not logically follow that because in a book by Dawkin's he doesn't address something you wish him to then you would 'decide it wrong to postulate events on variants absolutely separately from events on same', it doesn't follow logically at all. This might be how it worked in your head, if you ever actually read 'The Selfish Gene' that is, but it is by no means a logical progression.TTFN,WK

It could be worse...at least instead of calling all scientists nazi's, Sy now calls us all Newtonian

I knew Dawkins mentions reciprocal altruism later on in the book, I have discussed it before many times, but it's not the point. It's not the point either that you find a paper which mentions extinction as part of a paper on differential reproductive success of variants. The point is that to posit selfishness and altruism, or to posit differential reproductive succes of variants does not lead logically to mutual benefit, or mutual cost, or extinction in the structure of knowledge posited.You exploit the credibility issues, that is improper. I have no problem with it if you straightforwardly addressed credibility issues. It seems to be against your practice of science to recognize credibility as playing any role in science, because it might take away from looking at evidence. I guess this is why you address credibility in such an underhanded way.It's true that I'm not inclined to change my position, and that the organization of knowledge as you present it strikes me as ridiculous. But this is not arrogant, it just naturaly follows from the intellectual comfort of having a systematic approach that makes things understandable.According to evolutionary theory, about 0 percent of organisms that live now will in time (millions of years) become ancestors to something different enough to be called a new specie. Therefore it seems quite useless to look upon organisms as evolving. Yet you insist on a peculiar evolutionary view, and ridicule the reproductioncycle view which applies about 100 percent of the time. See what I mean? I am comfortable where I am. There's little chance that I will ignore something specific like the workings of photosynthesis, over notions of frequency changes, without some extremely good reason. I am highly suspicious to any view which would trivialize the importance of knowing about specific traits. Again the only time frequency is really of significance as far as i can tell, is when a particular frequency corresponds to a balancing point. To incorporate evolution into my view, just means to incorporate mutation and recombination. After that it's back to viewing in terms of reproductioncycle again, how the mutants fare in reproduction.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu