Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   natural selection is wrong
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 276 (110181)
05-24-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
05-24-2004 6:06 AM


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.
You can't talk about selection without talking about variation. If all organisms are the same, then there's no selection - there's no choice if all the choices are the same.
Once again, Syamsu presents his argument, and once again, we see it's as pointless as ever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 05-24-2004 6:06 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Syamsu, posted 05-25-2004 4:30 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 276 (110327)
05-25-2004 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Syamsu
05-25-2004 4:30 AM


But the choices in selection are reproduction and no reproduction
Right, and the determining factor, besides luck, is how long they were able to survive.
Individuals with different abilities survive for differing periods of time. Some don't survive long enough to reproduce, but others do, because they have some biological edge.
But if you ignore that variation between individuals, then you're forced to consider each individual identical - an entire species of clones. If each individual is identical, then selection doesn't matter - the same genes get passed on no matter who lives or dies.
This is just lunacy. Variation is a part of natural selection because variation is a part of life. You can't just ignore it - variation is real. If you try to take out variation, then you're left with a theory that ceases to model reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Syamsu, posted 05-25-2004 4:30 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Wounded King, posted 05-25-2004 5:21 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 17 by Syamsu, posted 05-25-2004 6:12 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 276 (110343)
05-25-2004 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Syamsu
05-25-2004 6:12 AM


So I can accuse you of ignoring sameness of organisms
There's no such thing, though. That's not even a word!
I am ignoring differences because I am only focused on cause and effect relationships, and this is the preferrable way to do science IMO.
Ok, well, focus on this: When differential reproduction leads to natural selection, that's an effect caused by the variation among conspecific organisms.
Simply looking at what affects reproduction of the organism, and if a variant happens to influence that reproduction
But you won't know if there's a preproductive influence or not unless you have something to compare reproductive success to.
If I tell you that the unique qualities or an organism led to it surviving long enough to have 10 offspring, is that organism adapted to its environment, or maladapted?
You can't tell me, can you? Of course you can't. You can't know without comparing its success with the success of its conspecifics. If the average member of that species has 2 offspring, that individual did very well. If the average member has 10,000 offspring, it did very poorly indeed.
Comparison. Variation. You can't get rid of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Syamsu, posted 05-25-2004 6:12 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Syamsu, posted 05-25-2004 6:34 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 276 (110347)
05-25-2004 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Syamsu
05-25-2004 6:34 AM


Absolutely I can tell you that if an organism has 10 offspring it is adapted to it's environment
You would be wrong, though. That's an organism that clearly is mal-adapted. We know this because of its severly impacted reproductive success.
If an organism lags behind its conspecifics that badly, it's on it's way out. There's no way that 10 individuals are going to outcompete 10,000, and their genes count for only one-thousandth of the genes in the species' gene pool.
That means that organism's genes aren't successful, because they're not increasing in frequency.
If an organism reproduces then it is adapted to it's environment of course.
No, of course not. Those offspring have to themselves reproduce. It's not enough that you have children, as the saying goes. You have to have grandchildren.
Seriously, Syamsu, you'd look a lot less stupid if you acquainted yourself with basic population dynamics. As it is, this topic is nonsense.

"What gets me is all the mean things people say about Secular Humanism without even taking the time to read some of our basic scriptures, such as the Bill of Rights or Omni magazine." - Barbara Ehrenreich

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Syamsu, posted 05-25-2004 6:34 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Syamsu, posted 05-25-2004 7:16 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 276 (110352)
05-25-2004 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Syamsu
05-25-2004 7:16 AM


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.
I don't understand what you're talking about. Moreover I don't think you do, either.
Obviously I don't see the merit in ignoring offspring that don't get to live until reproductive age.
Because they've been selected against. They're not being ignored - they're being counted against the success of the organism.
The above is just to illustrate that Darwinism is detached from reality in it's conception of fitness.
Not so. Darwinism uses the only real definition of fitness - how successful an allele makes an organism in terms of passing on genes that stay in the gene pool. If all of an organisms offspring are wiped out, then they don't contribute to the gene pool.
You can't be in the gene pool if you're dead. Once you're dead you're irrelevant to the species. Whether or not you were sucessful depends on how great a contribution to the gene pool you left in the form of offspring.
It's kind of like bowling. You don't know your score until you've bowled the final frame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Syamsu, posted 05-25-2004 7:16 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Syamsu, posted 05-25-2004 7:58 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 276 (110449)
05-25-2004 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Wounded King
05-25-2004 1:13 PM


It may be that Syamsu has an idiosyncratic definition of what a reproductive rate is.
It's been my experience that Syamsu has an idiosyncratic definition of almost any term he chooses to use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Wounded King, posted 05-25-2004 1:13 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 248 of 276 (123537)
07-10-2004 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by redwolf
07-09-2004 7:43 PM


The big conceptual problem is that natural selection is a destructive process and not a constructive one.
Your big conceptual problem is that natural selection isn't an indiscriminately destructive process, it's a selectively destructive one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by redwolf, posted 07-09-2004 7:43 PM redwolf has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 261 of 276 (123770)
07-11-2004 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by redwolf
07-11-2004 2:17 PM


Give me a list of beneficial mutations amongst mammals or birds, and make the mutations which could plausibly lead to a new kind of animal.
There's never, in the history of life, been a "new kind of animals."
All life is the same kind. We come up with hierarcheal terms that describe the degree of related-ness between organisms, but they're not separate "kinds".
But the fact that we can heirarcheally classify organisms is one of the strongest arguements for their common ancestry, and in fact it's one of the reasons they developed evolution in the first place.
Anything else is BS.
What's BS is this classification system you've invented, where there's "kinds of animals." Ludicrous!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by redwolf, posted 07-11-2004 2:17 PM redwolf has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 265 of 276 (123834)
07-11-2004 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by redwolf
07-11-2004 6:37 PM


One example would be baleen, or whalebone, as opposed to the kinds of teeth which killer whales have and which whale ancestors presumably had. Another example would be wings, as opposed to arms.
But neither baleen nor wings are novel structures. Baleen are modified teeth, and wings are arms with feathers. (That's why birds don't have arms.)
So, there's never new "kinds" of animals, there's only modifications from old ones. Ultimately, since you get back to a single common ancestor, there's only really one "kind" of life - life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by redwolf, posted 07-11-2004 6:37 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024