natural selection is wrong

That is simply not true, I did not misrepresent you, I only critized your choice of words.I don't really know what you're talking about with underlying assumptions, apart from what I already told you what the assumptions are, that the intensity is greatest when the chances of the mutually exclusive outcomes are equal.Again, the startingpoints of darwinists is one variant or the other variant reproducing, that should be the one organism reproducing or not, as a simple matter of organization of knowledge. Since the fundament of a theory resounds througout whatever is built on it, all this development you talk about is shaky.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No the individual doesn't constitute the fundamental basis of what is being observed, a pairing of variants constitutes the basis, the observations being prejudicially jaded that way. In the new formulation of the theory the focus is shifted from a pairing of variants, to an ensemble, I read.Your assertion is evidently untrue, by observing the theory you can see that,that's no way to debate. It is of course ridiculous that you assert that standard theory is individual, when I propose an alternative theory that is actually individual. That you like to say it is the individual is because that's where the scientfic interest of biology in general is, despite your numerous claims to the contrary.I guess it is mostly a matter of careful observation of individuals. You don't need to identify how a trait works with every individual, you can just identify how it works in one individual, and extrapolate your finding to all other individuals, as by general rule that same thing will produce same kind of result.As before the formula is just consistent with common knowledge about intensity of competition, it just expresses it more clearly, and definitively. You can contest the assumptions in it if you want, but I don't see you getting anywhere soon in criticizing, because you are yourself trapped in very vague Darwinist notions of competition.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You have to look at the fundamental concept you employ, which is of two variants, and not of an individual. Therefore within the framework of your theory things are happening to a pairing of variants, not to individuals. You confuse reality for the theory about it, you step outside your theory when you say it really is about individuals.As before starting from an individual approach you can arrive at natural selection / differential reproductive success of variants, as you can also arrive at differential reproductive success of same, and any type of other reproduction theory which are all essentially subsets to viewing in terms of the environment testing an individual organism's fitness to reproduce.As before, it is a matter of organization of knowledge. You can't posit a theory as fundamental, and then deconstruct it to arrive at for instance comparison of same. If you have given any counterargument to my argument about the organization of knowledge then I haven't seen it.The prejudice to have natural selection as the fundament is sustained because evolution tends to deny creation by God, and the moral sort of language gives Darwinists a substitute pseudoscientific religion. It is sustained by atheism and scientism, rather then scientific merit.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well you are wrong, and the odd place of natural selection or differential reproductive success in the structure of knowledge that follows from an environmental testing theory shows it, that it isn't about scientfic merit. Obviously your concept of science doesn't have much to do with standards of organizing knowledge, making your claim that it is scientific just empty pseudoscientific rhetoric.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No you can't have just 1 variant in a theory based on a differential pairing of variants, without stepping outside your theory.So what am I supposed to think now about what your objection is to having as fundamental an individual being tested by the environment in terms of fitness to reproduce, over having a pairing of variations?Sorry, I can't make out what your objection is, there's only a lot of hot air about me not understanding science, as far as I can tell. It is not the point of science when somebody makes a very specific objection like I do, to then just blurt out that what you do is science and therefore apparently objections aren't applicable.A comparitive theory like natural selection can never be a fundamental theory, because it is comparitive. It is simply preferrable in science to have theories based on physical relationships rather then comparitive relationships. I can't deny that it would have some use, to for instance compare how some organisms are doing in Europe compared to the USA, but to posit such comparing as some kind of law of nature is quite absurd. Natural selection doesn't apply to organisms on separate continents, the example just makes it more clear why such comparing is not desirable to have as a fundamental theory.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It is just like over a year ago when Quetzal and someone else said that selection is really about the individual, but just that variation had to be included because there is so much of it (a nonsense argument in view of the stasis of most traits and organisms). Now Wounded King is saying the same sort of thing, natural selection is really about the individual but....The fog is all in the objections against an individual theory, objections which you are all not too sure of in respect to the glaring disorganization of natural selection theory shown, when it laid side to side with numerous other theories which view organisms in terms of fitness to reproduce.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't understand how you can apply natural selection to a single organism, or a nonvarying population or nonvarying trait in a population, or in a scenario where variation is not at issue.I mentioned this before, but maybe not to you, Darwin considered changing the name natural selection into natural preservation. Since earlier in the thread you talked about your subjective adherence to the word selection being between variants, I think it might be enlightening to consider that Darwin used the word selection interchangeably with preservation, which word has entirely different connotations then the word selection. Also from Darwin, he used the word struggle individually, as in a plant struggles against the drought. As struggle may be equated to competition, it follows that competition might also be individual, according to Darwin.This exegesis of Darwin, although of course entirely prejudicial, may take away some other subjective obstacles for having an individual theory. Apart from the subjective obstacles, the issue seems quite clearcut in favour of an individual theory.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I assume that there is no difference between not being able to apply natural selection, and not being able to apply natural selection in an evolutionary meaningful manner. That it doesn't apply shows that natural selection is not individual, as you baselessly asserted previously, but applies to a pairing of variants.Yes, lacking any obvious counterargument, the cultural context of scienctism and atheism seems to adequately explain why Darwinists deviate from the normal procedure in organizing knowledge, of starting the theory simple and building up to complex scenario's. Starting with a theory that describes organisms in terms of fitness to reproduce to measure their preservation, and deriving from that a comparitive principle about variant reproduction.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But natural selection isn't based on individuals, because it is constricted by the requirements, it is based on a pairing of variants.It's not a baseless assertion when I give an explanation how darwinists deviate from normal procedure, which is to have natural selection theory as fundamental (which you say is very complex, but is generally understood to be very simple actually), in stead of the more simple testing in terms of fitness to reproduce.You are cutting corners to increase credibility by saying such things as that natural selection is complex where in stead generally biologists say it is simple, and saying it is based on individual level instances of birth and death in stead of a pairing of variants.In conclusion the paper referenced equates neutral selection with natural selection. The Darwinist rationale for including variation in the formulation thereby becomes tenuous, which removes another obstacle to getting closer to a more fundamental individual theory which describes organisms in terms of fitness to reproduce. The structure of knowledge shown when the fitness theories are laid side by side, clearly indicates that the individual theory is the best way to go, for reasons of simplicity, focus on physical relationships rather then comparitive relationships, general applicability, scientifc merit / meaningful data produced. Other theories are to be derived as subsets from it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It would be better if you just wrote a conclusion yourself, in stead of going on and on. You are just posturing now, there is no substance anymore.It has nothing to do with statistics. Statistics also apply to a population of organisms/traits not varying. Your theory is not individual at base it requires a pairing of variants, as also commented in articles about Darwinism.Wounded King:
"The paper arguably says that instances of neutral selection should be seen as part of Natural selection"That is the same bloody thing as equating them.Gee, now you fall back to saying that the environment testing the organism in terms of fitness to reproduce, can't be built up to comparing variants in terms of fitness to reproduce. It's totally ridiculous. You use the simple theory twice, one time for each variant, and divide the results.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Any neutral selection story is now a natural selection story, according to the paper. Thereby they are equated into one. Go read a dictionary if you want about the word equated, you won't have much luck denying it. Reading some of the replies, I'm pretty sure your words are misrepresentative of the quite fundamental shift the paper argues for, this should be of some concern to you after you have repeatedly stated I misrepresented the paper.As 10 times before, it can be built into differential reproductive success of variants, it can also be built up to differential reproductive success of same (as with noting populationshares which fall prey to predators, or seasonal bad weather for instance), and loads of other permutations of the fundamental theory. You can't deconstruct natural selection, and then rebuild to come up with the other permutations of the fundamental theory, that is no way to organize knowledge.As 10 times before, it is no good to have a comparitive theory as fundamental, science should be based on physical relationships rather then comparitive. With comparisons a high degree of interpretation tends to set in. Besides Percy wants to have comparison as a real thing in nature. It is therefore double faulty to have a comparison which is essentially not real in a fundamental theory, which confuses with comparisons which supposedly are real (as part of competition, chance outcome determination, chances which mutually exclude each other, or something).As 10 times before, the basis of most all biology is how the invidual organism relates to the environment in terms of fitness to reproduce. How photosynthesis functions in regards to fitness to reproduce etc. etc.That I have to say these things 10 times, is because you don't have a clear counterargument to them.I won't participate in another thread about it, I think it can just be limited to this one. The moderators have previously pointed out that they want to limit the discussion of this particular idea to one thread, and not have it spammed all over. I think to have a paper that argues some fault in natural selection gives some credibility to the idea that a 150 year old theory can contain faults, so it is oppurtune for me to have the discussion in this thread.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't mean to continue it now, I think it's best if your wrote some sort of conclusion, like I did. And please try not to attack me in your conclusion, just say for instance that you don't understand how testing in terms of fitness to reproduce would work, in stead of accusing me of not making it clear to you.From the dictionary, number 4 seems applicable.I did not suggest that describing in terms of fitness to reproduce is the startingpoint of all biology, however it is the mainstay of biology yes, the description of reproductioncycle of organisms of a specie. This of course stands against popular evolutionist rhetoric that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, which is simply false. Evolution makes little sense, because of the asserted randomness of mutations. Not much sense can be made from randomness.The paper argues a fault in natural selection, nobody before as far as I know equated neutral selection stories to natural selection, and that was faulty. 150 years of faults.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Natural selection and neutral selection are equated in meaning, they now both mean natural selection, where before they were construed as separate forces.Theoretically most all mutations which give an advantage get wiped out, because they have to compete with a greater number of non-mutants at the start. That is the second hurdle advantageous mutations face, the first being to arise randomly from a set of possible mutations which are almost all deleterious.What I am saying is that fundamentally we should look to organisms individually for what their fitness to reproduce is, in stead of looking comparitively between variants.Your false assumption that it is only sometimes that a disadvantaged variant get's to reproduce, where in fact it is actually most times that the advantaged variants get's wiped out, is I think a result of your failure to look at the individual fitness to reproduce.Of course Darwinists have known that advantageous mutations get wiped out most times, but it is not apparent by the structure of their theory. And like this, there are many more deceptions that follow from making as fundamental a comparitive view between variants, in stead of an individual view in terms of fitness to reproduce. It is simply a matter of a straightforward structure of knowledge, as explained quite adequately in the thread numerous times IMO.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Would the solemn preachers of methodological naturalism, and excusologists of Darwin care to comment on the apparent disparity between Darwin's story of human evolution, and Pott's story?My comment is that the disparity shows that Natural Selection is simply wrong. It never was a scientific hypothesis, it was and is pseudoscience, a notional set of beliefs, unstructured, prejudicial, highly deceptive.(c.Darwin, Descent of Man)
Darwin's "definition" of natural selection in Descent of Man."Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals."And how natural selection mainly operates."Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race. (.....) and when of two adjoining tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption."Error
"Potts believes the fossil find shows that early humans lived in little groups that became separate and distinct for a while, and then came together every few thousand years or so, swapping genes and then parting ways again."On occasion, they became isolated for a while, possibly hundreds of generations, and so developed their own unique combination of features," Potts said in an e-mail."regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

They are equated, natural and neutral, as proposed by the paper now mean (from memory) differential retention of variation.. or something. Your nay-saying is awfully boring. Should we now say that natural selection is a subgroup of natural selection, as you want to say that neutral selection is a subgroup of natural selection?If you have 1000 organisms of ancestor variant A, and 1 of the advantageous mutant B with a wopping 10 percent advantage, and typically 200 organisms in the population get to reproduce, then it is uh... (spare me the math) obviously unlikely that the advantageous organism will reproduce. Have you ever thought to look at this mathematically in your useless nay saying? How can you assert so strongly without doing the math?Maybe I should have said phenotypically expressed mutations are most all deleterious, this would have been more exact.That's great that you see the "developmental" aspect of mutations, in stead of the randomness. However randomness is the standard theory of natural selection, and I can use the standard theory in criticizing it.Natural Selection is not based on an individual it requires a pair of variants at at minimum to apply, the "forces" of natural selection therefore do not act on an individual, by definition. If natural selection applied to an individual then we could have a single individual and natural selection acting on it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu