Darwinist forum

I think the setup of this forum is Darwinist. It's creation *versus* evolution, just like it is the black moth *versus* the white moth, in Darwinist terminology.I think many do not realise that there could possibly be several equally meritable science theories about the origin of life, just as many do not realise there can be a population where white and black moths are both fit in their shared environment.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I was using origin of life in a broad sense. Please try to focus on something more meaningful in reply, in stead of nitpicking.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are confusing Darwinism with the theory of evolution. Since some definitions of Natural Selection, like the one in a medical reference book I found recently, *require* the extinction of the one by the other for the theory to apply, I'm pretty sure that many knowledgeable Darwinists are more or less obtuse to the possibility of variants in a population that are both fit to reproduce.But also the whole atmosphere on this forum is one of sometimes meaningless, and most times very aggressive opposition. There seems to be no incentive to seek common ground. Like with intelligent design, you could look for common ground by defining intelligence. And with the multi-purpose genome you could look for common ground, in arguing about the nature of DNA as a programming language, or theorizing about old DNA getting reactivated, which could both be interpreted as multi-purpose aspects of DNA. Or in arguing about creation, people could still recognize the importance of decision, of events going one way or another, as a point where something new is made. And so there are many more examples like that of needless and crude opposition on this forum, that really undermine things which are either essential in ethics (like concepts of choice), or which undermine other sciences, like molecular genetics, and artificial intelligence research.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I'm talking about definitions of Natural Selection where extinction is part of the definition, sometimes also referred to as replacement or encroachment.We are just guessing wether or not Darwinists are obtuse to the possibility of both variants being fit, but really when an influential Darwinist like Dawkins sums up modern understanding of Natural Selection as "Nature red in tooth and claw" it is reasonable to think that many a Darwinist are obtuse about the possibility of both variants being fit to reproduce.Tell me, how did black wingcolor of moths contribute to reproduction fitness *prior* to the trees turning black? If you are not obtuse about the possibility of both variants being fit for reproduction then you should know the answer to this.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As before I'm talking about Natural Selection not the theory of evolution. It's not a problem except for when you require extinction of one of the variants to take place for the theory of Natural Selection to apply, then you tend to be obtuse to the possibility of extinction not taking place.I don't see the point for you to say "nature red in tooth and claw" is from a poem. Dawkins has supported it's usage because it "sums up our modern understanding of Natural Selection admirably", not because it has some kind of ring to it. Obviously this conception will tend to lead to ignoring the possibility of both variants in a population being fit for reproduction, although you are right that the possibility of both variants being fit is not absolutely excluded in most definitions of Natural Selection.Well, what was the black wingcolor camouflage to. The night? Shadows in the forest? The black earth? I can't remember ever reading something about how black wingcolor functioned as camouflage prior to trees turning back, in the famous peppered moth illustration of Natural Selection theory. It was simply ignored as far as I know. I think you see my point.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

When you have a definition of Natural Selection that requires extinction of one of the variants, then occurences where neither variant go extinct fall outside the framework of the theory, and by falling outside the theoretical framework they will largely be ignored.I would be happy if Dawkins was generally considered to be just flamboyant, but I think he has much influence and his opinions are not generally dismissed as flamboyant.I notice that you now deny that black wingcolor, or darker wingcolor has it's own reproductive fitness prior to blackened trees. I believe your saying that prior to the blackened trees the variation was just generic, not fitting anything in particular. You may be right, but I'm pretty sure you are just guessing. You are guessing at a scenario that fits your theory (or maybe just your argument), in stead of investigating first what you should know to be uncertain without investigation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It depends on the definition if or not something falls outside the scope of the theory or not. Would you say that endangered species fall within the scope of Natural Selection? The environment changes, and all individuals in a population becomes less adapted, less fit to reproduce. There is no significant variation in the population that deals better or worse with the change in environment. I'd say this occurence does fall under Natural Selection theory, and that all the definitions of Natural Selection that require variation for the theory to apply are faulty for making this a requirement for the theory to apply.The standard definition of Natural Selection goes like differential reproductive success of variants. Clearly endangered species fall outside the standard definition of Natural Selection theory. So when you say that "nothing falls outside off the theory", do you then agree with me that the standard definition is false this way? Or if not then please make a list of what falls outside of Natural Selection theory. I think you will find that list to be very very long. I didn't see you make any mention of the legs of moths for instance, only wingcolor. Do the legs of moths fall outside the theory of Natural Selection? You will find that almost every organism that ever lived falls outside the scope of standard theory of Natural Selection, and many sorts of events fall outside the standard theory. What about photosynthesis of plants, does that fall within the scope of Natural Selection theory?I've never seen anyone reference Dawkins sciencepapers, I would be interested in some webpage reference to what they are about. I think they are largely unknown. His book was not, or not only, introductory, it was positing something largely new, gene selfishness, and i've seen the popular pressbook referenced in a science paper. Again, I would be quite happy if what you said was true, but it isn't. His books are widely read within science circles by people who already have a degree and do not need any introduction.As far as I can tell you are not mentioning the possibility that each or some colorgrades prior to the trees turning black, already conferred a reproductive fitness related to their colorgrade. The darker colored were adapted to darker environments, and the lighter to lighter environments.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I agree mostly, Natural Selection is for an organism to reproduce or fail to reproduce. I have some questions about including survival, but mostly I agree.I think you are mistaken that this is generally clear, or accepted, by biology students, as well as biology scientists. On this forum I seem to remember Schrafinator requiring all sorts of other criteria for Natural Selection, as well as Tazimus_Maximus, and on usenet talk.origins, as well as other forums, it was made clear to me that there had to be variation and a difference in reproductive success related to that variation for Natural Selection to apply. Again, differential reproductive success of variants, obviously doesn't apply to a clone population. Nor does Darwin's original formulation apply to a clone population, the great majority of definitions of Natural Selection don't apply to a clone population.I think you are arguing like that supposedly it is interpretatively understood that NS does apply, eventhough per most definitions it doesn't apply. I don't think science works that way. Science has to be exact/precise, and not interpretatively understood.If the environment changes the organism may become less adapted eventhough it is the same as before. A fish on dry land is not much adapted. That is how I understand the word. I don't know what you mean by adapted if not that.For as far as the moth example goes, it could be that there is fitness for reproduction related to colorgrade prior to trees turning black. This doesn't exclude interbreeding, I didn't mean to exclude it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well what is the difference between "suited" and "adapted"?The rest is answered in another post I think.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu