Darwinist language

I would like to invite some opinion on changing the language of the
theory of Natural Selection into a general theory of reproduction,
thereby getting rid of the emotive language of Natural Selection
theory, and providing some secondary scientific benefits as well.To illustrate what problem I am addressing, I will quote a line from
Darwin's "Origin of Species"."and as Natural Selection works solely by and for the good of each
being, all corpereal and mental endowments will tend to progress
towards perfection." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species)What's Darwin talking about here, a magical force of goodness leading
to perfection? Before reading further, you should try to translate
this line into more neutral scientific language yourself, to see if
this emotive language is a problem for you.The translation should read:
"and as Natural Selection works solely by and for the reproduction of
each being, all corpereal and mental endowments will tend to become
more efficient in working towards this end."The "good" Darwin is talking about means nothing more then
reproduction, and this is what his theory is "solely" about. This is
also well said in a phrase that Darwinists often use to make clear
what the unit of selection is. If you are familiar with Darwinists
literature you might have come across it several times:"the organism either reproduces or fails to reproduce, and therefore
it is the unit of selection"Again this shows that what Natural Selection is about is reproduction,
although the phrase is really about asserting the organism as the
thing that Natural Selection acts on.That Natural Selection is solely about reproduction is not clear in
standard definitions of Natural Selection. A standard Natural
Selection story would probably go something like below:Imagine a field of flowers....When coming upon a field of flowers, usually Darwinists do not
actually describe the field of flowers in the present, usually
Darwinists describe only some would be ancestors like: zillions of
years ago, there were plants that did not have flowers, and a single
plant which had a rudimentary flowerpetal.etc.Darwinism is basicly not much use to describe fields of flowers in the
present because of the lack of variation in them.But imagine that there would be variation in the present population of
flowers that corresponds with a difference in reproductionrate.Each flower is struggling to survive. Those that survive the longest
will reproduce the most. The blue flowers have a higher chance of
attracting insects to distribute it's pollen then the red flowers,
therefore they will on average survive longer, and reproduce more.This doesn't actually make sense, because it's not neccesarily so that
failing to reproduce means you will live shorter. Still this is
standard Darwinian language that I'm sure you are familiar with.After some time, the blue flowers compete the red flowers into
extinction, resulting in a population of uniformly blue flowers that
is more adapted to it's environment (the environment of insects).This may happen when there are red and blue flowers, so in this sense
the Darwinian description is absolutely correct. But there are several
more possibilities of what could happen in a population of red and
blue flowers. We may find for instance that some insects prefer red
flowers, and other insects prefer blue flowers leading to a balance of
red and blue in the population. Also it is possible that the variation
mutually enhances the chance of reproduction of both blue and red
flowers. Or conversely the possiblity that this variation mutually
decreases the chance of reproduction of both sorts of flowers. etc.Natural Selection makes us focus on this one possibility of extinction
of the one by the other, leading us to neglect the other
possibilities.I find it also deceptive that the chance of reproduction is contrasted
solely with the chance of reproduction of a different sort in the
population. Different sorts are but one of many environmental factors
that possibly influence reproduction, and so to single out this one
environmental factor (a variational other) is being prejudicial about
what influences reproduction.What's more the view provided of the flowers is exceptionally narrow.
By applying standard Natural Selection theory we have come to know how
the flower of a plant works in the assembly of reproductions (by
attracting insects to distribute it's pollen), but we know nothing
about the photosynthesis in the leaves of the flowery plant. Does
photosynthesis then not contribute to reproduction? Of course it does,
but it simply is ignored in Darwinist theory because it is normally
not variational.What seems peaceful at first, a field of flowers, is by Darwinist
terminology reduced to a murderous deathstruggle between reds and
blues.You shouldn't have these problems with a general theory of
reproduction in my experience. If you would just look at the flowers
in terms of a possible future event of it's reproduction, and any
competition with different sorts of flowers as incidental to the
possibility of that event. Remember the only reason that I imagined
there to be red and blue flowers, is because the standard formulation
of Natural Selection requires there to be this sort of variation for
the theory to apply. This is not required by a general theory of
reproduction.The logic of a general theory of reproduction says that: since all
organisms die, only through continued reproduction are there any
organisms left in the world.Compare this to watches, then I would have a general theory of
"telling the time" for watches. The logic of the watches theory then
becomes that: only because watches "tell the time" are there any
watches left in the world. If watches would stop telling the time we
would disregard them, and they would all be destroyed eventually.This maybe clarifies something about Darwinist terminology, that you
can equally say reproductive selection, in stead of natural selection,
applied to organisms. Similarly you can also talk about "telling the
time" selection, in Darwinist terminology applied to watches.The word selection in Natural Selection does not mean selecting
between two different organisms, but it means selection between the
event of reproducing, and not reproducing. Similarly selection of
watches happens on the event of the watches either telling the time,
or the watches not telling the time.What is maybe difficult to grasp is that it is already very meaningful
to look upon organisms in view of their chance of reproduction,
without specially considering variation or competition. To answer the
question, how does this organism reproduce? Answers most everything
you want to know about an organism. To add in evolution you would only
have to ask the question, does this modification contribute to
reproduction or not?Take for example the current mass extinction of species. The standard
theory of Natural Selection doesn't apply here, because variation in a
population is not at issue. A general theory of reproduction does
apply, because it always applies, and gives you the right focus. To
focus on the continued reproduction, rather then on individuals
surviving which standard Natural Selection theory might lead you to
focus on. Or otherwise consider how zookeepers have been quite able to
keep individuals alive longer then they normally would be in the wild,
but only recently have they begun to tackle the problem of making them
reproduce.So there is a mix of scientific benefit and emotional benefit to
changing Natural Selection into a general theory of reproduction. The
scientific benefits are maybe small in my experience, but the
emotional benefits, to reinterpet the nasty Darwinist language in
terms of the more neutral perspective of a general theory of
reproduction, are great.Maybe it needs psychological research to prove that the differences in
perception are generally significant, but since that is not available
you should test the different formulations in your own intellectual
experiences. I don't think it's wise to speculate and theorize too
much about how other people would perceive the difference betwen
Natural Selection and a general theory of reproduction. I think it
would be far more meaningful that you bring your own personal
experiences to this discussion in using the different formulations.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It's certainly not my intention to go around one more time with the likes of Schrafinator, or even Peter. I have just made it into a more clear and logical story for those that are not defensively minded.Notice that Peter absolutely insists on survival, while this position is clearly made invalid in my story of the flowers.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are just arguing something too difficult in denial of the simple basic observations.There seem to be a lot of oaktrees.The oaktrees reproduce.How do the oaktrees reproduce?What would it take to save an oaktree from extinction in some area, what would it take to have it reproduce?That which inhibits the oaktree from reproducing are negative selective pressures, that which contributes to an oaktree reproducing are positive selective pressures.When the environment changes the chances of reproduction of an organism may change as well. Clearly there are many cases where it is interesting to look at reproduction, without considering variational competition. Especially different environments for same sort organisms is interesting enough.Therefore it needs to be understood to first look upon an organism in view of it's chance of reproduction, and the environment as selecting on this chance.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

1The basic working of the reproduction of an organism without neccesarily considering any kind of evolution, or optimality.It's as though "evolution" has replaced "reproduction" or "survival" in Natural Selection, so as to say that organisms that do not evolve inevitably go extinct. Organisms then not having a fitness value, but a newness or uniqueness value.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

John, you previously stated (with support from Quetzal) that you can have Natural Selection on a population that has no variation (a cloned population). Could you reference me a single science paper, or even a common biologytext that makes use of the term Natural Selection or Selection that way, without neccessarily referring to variation?I have had other biologists explicitly and strongly denying that Natural Selection can be used that way, or is meaningful to use that way.I don't think you appreciate how big a change this would be in the perception of Natural Selection to scientists, intellectuals and students alike.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Since general interest is with sorts of organisms and traits of organisms, and not sorts of population or populationtraits, I chose to say organisms going extinct.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I'm sorry, I don't see the word Selection or Natural Selection being used here as acting on a population without variation. It is used as driving a population towards having no variation, but then Natural Selection, as I read it, ceases to apply.----
edited to add: The article starts out with: "While Natural Selection continuously increases fitness (relative contribution of a given phenotype to the next generation)"This use of Natural Selection is inconsistent with "surviving or not surviving" (or reproduction). If the environment changed in a way which would make a population extinct, would make all organisms not survive (a scenario where variation is a non-issue), then there would obviously not be any increase of fitness of any organism through Natural Selection.
---Do you mean to say that normally for *every* trait there is variation in a population where each variant has a different fitness?Or do you mean to say that normally there is some variation in every population, and that this variation normally manipulates which organisms reproduce.Respectfully, the evolution vs creation debate mainly runs on politics, not science. The scientific difference may be small, (although I don't think it is that small, seeing that you can usefully apply the simple definition with endangered species / changing environments that have no meaningful differential impact on a population), the more broader conceptual intellectual difference is huge. There is a world of difference between "reproducing or not reproducing" and "differential reproductive success of variants". In the last we are comparing, and all the judgemental language tends to come in, of one being better then the other etc. which is closely associated with Social Darwinism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 12-30-2002]

As I read the degrading forces existed apart from Natural Selection in the article.You're basically saying that it has no scientific interest to know how an organism reproduces. That is the knowledge that the simple formulation provides. With the complex formulation you would come to know frog A is "better" then frog B, but you don't actually come to know how either frog lives, you just come to know about a *single* trait that by coincedence is varying. The complex formulation ceases to apply once there is no variation, and for most all traits, there is no significant variation. For most of the time the complex formulation is meaningless, stasis rules.When you accept that there is some variation in all populations, and that this variation manipulates which organisms reproduce, to what kind of variation are you referring then? Aren't you mainly referring to socalled deleterious alleles?I've been looking on the web for some references to selection on a cloned population, and I found one which says that then "Natural Selection affects all the individuals in the population in the same way". I found many definitions of Natural Selection on the web. For sure there is no way that even a small percentage of evolutionists knows to apply the simple formulation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Then tell me how to describe how a frog lives, if not in the context of the simple formulation of Natural Selection? (for it to reproduce, or not to reproduce).I don't think you can get away from using the simple formulation of Natural Selection most anywhere in biology.At the start of life the chance of reproduction of frogs is normally exceedingly small. After passing some "development-stages" I'd imagine this chance of reproduction has grown for those still left alive. The selective events that are normally especially critical in determining the chance of reproduction of a frog are the....... etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Again, the article was unclear on this point, and since I have numerous biologists explicitly denying that Natural Selection can occur without variation, it's not really satisfactory as a reference that the "mainstream" accepts the simple formulation. I can not likely use this article to convince them that mainstream biologists use the simple formulation also(which boils down to a worthless argument from authority anyway, but many just won't even consider an argument if it isn't first backed up by an authority) Again, no evolutionist I talked to, except Quetzal and you, accepts the simple formulation. I once saw the simple formulation being used in a documentary on bears on TV. Considering that it is virtually impossible to film differential reproductive success of variants among bears, the filmmakers just had to use selection in the simple sense. But when I recounted this on talk.origins it was denied as incorrect usage of the term.The complex formulation (differential reproductive success of variants)obviously ceases to apply without variation present, as a matter of definition. Obviously predation etc. continues to occur, which is exactly why the complex formulation is so bad, because it stops and starts to apply with disappearence and appearance of variation, and it also gives a skewed look at the organism, where we come to know about the wingcolor of the moth, but nothing about the antennae of moth.How an organism lives can be satisfactorily described in terms of the simple formulation of Natural Selection. To describe how organisms live is arguably the main job of biologists. So I can't see how you can say that biologists haven't much use for the simple formulation.Some sort of event normally influences the chance of reproduction greatly, it is a big selective pressure. For instance predation by birds on moths. Unfortunately, I don't think I will find anyone who can understand this selection in a non-variation way, without an authoritative reference. Perhaps there are some sciencepapers which list the main selective pressures on some organism?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

There are descriptions of the frog without reference to Natural Selection, but I'm not sure if those descriptions are very consistent. I am pretty sure that descriptions without Natural Selection do not have the cohesiveness that comes from focusing the description of all traits on the event of reproduction.The Creationist reverend Paley wrote about all traits of organisms being suited in some way for either survival or reproduction. I think it is significant that Paley distinguished survivaltraits and reproductiontraits, in stead of seeing them all as reproductiontraits. It doesn't actually make hard logical sense in an evolution scenario that the traits of organisms are suited for survival, because all organisms die, they all fail at surviving as the fossilrecord shows.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Why would the simple formula cease to apply because there is variation? Is phototsynthesis of plants inconsequential to describe because of some variation in the population? Biologists don't use selection in regards to photosynthesis of plants because they don't accept, or are ignorant of such usage, not because there is variation in a population.Actually differential reproductive success of variants is incompatible with the formulation of an organism reproducing or not reproducing.The complex formula is based on a comparitive view of organisms, the simple formula is based on an individual view of an organism.From the simple formula I would logically derive something named competitive reproduction or reproductive replacement, as someting close to differential reproductive success of variants.The difference being, that in differential reproductive success of variants, the variants don't actually have to be selection factors to each other (don't have to influence each others reproduction in any way) for it to apply, while in reproductive replacement there has to be a selective relationship between the two variants for it to apply.So with the simple formula I would not say that the one is "better" then the other at reproducing, or that the one has a higher rate of reproduction then the other, but in stead merely that the one replaced the other.So there would be as far as I can see no comparison at all in any of the subsets to the simple formulation. Basically with the simple theory you see the one organism, and then the rest is environment to that organism.In it's evolution usage you would with the simple theory look at either a changed organism (mutant/recombinant), or look to each individual existent variant again when the environment changed, and see how it's chances of reproduction are.Evolution of species just hinging on the possibility of a mutant reproducing or not, according to the simple theory.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

There aren't any articles that describe normal operation of photosynthesis in terms of Natural Selection. Photosynthesis is only discussed in relation to Natural Selection if the photosynthesistrait is itself varying, or either it is discussed historically with reference to the first photosynthetic organism etc.Again, you forget the creation vs evolution debate runs on politics, not science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Biology is supposed to be science, you're supposed to have a theoretical framework for looking at organisms. That there are more ways to look at organisms besides looking in terms of the event of their reproduction is not relevant. I can't see when it stops being useful to look at them in terms of the event of their reproduction.So seeing that it is useful to look at organisms this way, seeing that looking this way covers all what is supposed to be covered with the old Natural Selection theory, it should be named Natural Selection, regardless of personal distaste of statistics and randomness. It would be faulty to say that Natural Selection allows one form, but doesn't allow another form to reproduce, because obviously reproduction is not just about form of organism. The form of an organism does not ensure whether or not it will reproduce. To just look at forms, and ignore the actual individuals seems very Platonic to me.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No I didn't realise that that there are as many variants of photosynthesis as there are colors of hair, I thought photosynthesis needed very specific molecules, or otherwise it didn't work. Of course when I say there is no writing about Selection in regards to photosynthesis I mean there is no writing on it without reference to variation. That is the main point we are discussing, selection without variation. There aren't any articles which use the term selection in regards to normal operation of photosynthesis, eventhough there are many articles on normal operation of photosynthesis.The change for selection to be defined in a non-comparitive invidivdual way, and not in a comparitison of forms way is revolutionary for the politics in the creation vs evolution debate. You argued that the change was not revolutionary, for as far as science goes.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu