Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinist language
John
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 68 (28051)
12-29-2002 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
11-18-2002 11:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
"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?

Big deal. I don't think any of us here are strict Darwinists. Darwin is not the final word on anything.
Think about this: Would you approach an astrophysicist and criticise cosmology because Newton didn't incorporate relativity? That would be silly, yes? Newton did what he could with what he had, and worked out formulas which are still used very frequently. Other people build on it and modify it. The same has happened with Darwin's theories, yet you insist on reaching back 150+ years and harping on Darwin's book as if it were scripture. It isn't.
quote:
That Natural Selection is solely about reproduction is not clear in
standard definitions of Natural Selection.

I have never seen a definition, except those proposed by the uninformed, in which this is not made clear.
quote:
Darwinism is basicly not much use to describe fields of flowers in the
present because of the lack of variation in them.

This is silly. Walk into a field of flowers and you'll find more variation than you can record in a year.
quote:
But imagine that there would be variation in the present population of
flowers that corresponds with a difference in reproductionrate.

No need to imagine.
quote:
This doesn't actually make sense, because it's not neccesarily so that
failing to reproduce means you will live shorter.

You are right. Failing to reproduce doesn't make most critters die early, but this is your misunderstanding. A biologist wouldn't make this claim, except in particular circumstances.
quote:
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.

And eventual speciation. This fits perfectly well into standard evolutionary theory.
quote:
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.

Fine.
quote:
Natural Selection makes us focus on this one possibility of extinction
of the one by the other, leading us to neglect the other
possibilities.

No, Syamsu, for some reason it forces YOU to focus on extinction and neglect the other possibilities.
quote:
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.

What? Reproduction of a different sort? What might that be?
quote:
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.

This is again YOUR problem. Biologists don't ignore this stuff. You insist they do. Sorry, but YOU have a mental block here, not us.
quoteThe 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.
][/quote]
?????? And this is profound ?????
quote:
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.

What you suggest is impossible. How do calculate the chances of reproduction without considering the biology -- the variation-- and the environment -- the competition-- of the organism?
quote:
To add in evolution you would only
have to ask the question, does this modification contribute to
reproduction or not?

That was a long way round to get right back to the standard ToE.
quote:
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.

Sure it is-- not enough variation to adapt to the onslaught of human activity.
quote:
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.

What is the point?
quote:
I think it
would be far more meaningful that you bring your own personal
experiences to this discussion in using the different formulations.

I recall that many of us did just this several months ago and we were called racists and liars.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 11-18-2002 11:35 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Syamsu, posted 12-29-2002 11:06 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 68 (28105)
12-30-2002 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Syamsu
12-29-2002 11:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
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?
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/courses.hp/biol606/OldLecs/Lecture2001.01.McAdam.html
As a result, populations at equilibrium are predicted to have no genetic variation in fitness itself and therefore heritabilities (proportion of total phenotypic variation which is due to additive genetic variation) equal to zero.
quote:
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 see how one could deny it, if the proposal is made clear. However, it may not be very useful as virtualy no populations have zero variation.
quote:
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.
Respectfully, I don't think you realize what a non-issue this is. The problem is a problem you have projected onto the scientific comunity at large. But in reality, it is your problem.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Syamsu, posted 12-29-2002 11:06 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Syamsu, posted 12-30-2002 10:23 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 68 (28134)
12-30-2002 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Syamsu
12-30-2002 10:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
I'm sorry, I don't see the word Selection or Natural Selection being used here as acting on a population without variation.
Syamsu, can a population of clones go extinct? Can they all die when conditions change? If yes, then selection is working on a population without variation.
What I cited for you was a paper defining 'populations at equilibrium' -- that is populations which have no significant variation and as such NS works on the group as a whole.
quote:
It is used as driving a population towards having no variation, but then Natural Selection, as I read it, ceases to apply.
Why do you read it this way? It makes no sense. You can select one variant, two variants, all variants or no variants. In all cases, it is selection. Why do you think that if a population becomes extremely uniform it is no longer subject to environmental pressures? This is what you imply in saying that NS does not apply to populations with no variation.
quote:
edited to add: The article starts out with: "While Natural Selection continuously increases fitness (relative contribution of a given phenotype to the next generation)"
And continues with:
"degrading forces such as mutation, migration and changes in the environment tend to decrease fitness."
quote:
This use of Natural Selection is inconsistent with "surviving or not surviving" (or reproduction).
Yes, but only when you cut the sentence in half and present only part of the idea. The 'degrading forces' are integral to NS.
quote:
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.

You've said very close to the same thing in both questions. I'd go with the second though.
quote:
There is a world of difference between "reproducing or not reproducing" and "differential reproductive success of variants".
Only for you.
quote:
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.
In your version, there is no comparison-- can be no comparison. Without comparison there are no patterns and thus no theories and no information. You version is "Animal A mates and reproduces." THAT IS IT. Its pointless. You have a problem saying that frog A is better suited to its pond than frog B is suited to the same pond, but that is the way it works. Sorry. It isn't social Darwinism. It is 'some animals freeze to death while others do not. Those that do not freeze can be reasonably assumed to have been better adapted to the cold and are also the one who pass along there genes. Dead critters do not pass along genes.'
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Syamsu, posted 12-30-2002 10:23 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Syamsu, posted 01-01-2003 10:54 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 68 (28351)
01-03-2003 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Syamsu
01-01-2003 10:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
As I read the degrading forces existed apart from Natural Selection in the article.
What do you think is doing the selection? Is there a force of NS similar to, say, gravity or magnetism? Nope. The forces doing the selection are the 'degrading' forces listed in the article-- weather, predation, etc. The use of the term 'degrading forces' must mean something like 'forces detrimental to the current population' or 'forces for which the species is not currently adapted.'
quote:
You're basically saying that it has no scientific interest to know how an organism reproduces.
What? Perhaps you are talking about the simple formulation of NS. NS functions on individuals so in that respect reproduction, perhaps, isn't important. But if you want to study more than one generation, then reproduction is quite fundamentally important.
[quoe]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.[/quote]
For most of the fossil record we won't ever know much about how the critters lived, but for living organisms it would be silly to ignore such things.
How often do you think scientists study one trait and then move on? One trait at a time in many cases, but that isn't the same thing.
quote:
The complex formulation ceases to apply once there is no variation
We've been through this countless times. Do things not stop being affected by the environment, disease and predation when variation reaches zero? SO far you have not answered this question. It is critical. If things are still affected, then NS still applies. It is very very simple.
quote:
For most of the time the complex formulation is meaningless, stasis rules.
Stasis is the norm. So what? True or false this makes no difference.
quote:
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?
ummmm..... what kind of variation is there? Different-from-the-other-guy-- that kind of variation.
quote:
Aren't you mainly referring to socalled deleterious alleles?
Such would be included. These would be the individuals who don't survive.
quote:
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".
Bingo.
quote:
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.
Biologists likely rarely have a reason to even consider it, this is not the same as ignorance.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Syamsu, posted 01-01-2003 10:54 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Syamsu, posted 01-04-2003 2:58 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 68 (28407)
01-04-2003 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Syamsu
01-04-2003 2:58 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]Again, the article was unclear on this point[/quote][/b]
The article is an example not an argument.
quote:
and since I have numerous biologists explicitly denying that Natural Selection can occur without variation
Then ask them if things still die when variation reaches zero.
quote:
Again, no evolutionist I talked to, except Quetzal and you, accepts the simple formulation.
I suspect this has a lot to do with semantics.
quote:
The complex formulation (differential reproductive success of variants)obviously ceases to apply without variation present, as a matter of definition.
Why can the varables for variation be '1'? Plug '1' into the formula instead of two, or three or four? The math still works. I don't see the problem.
quote:
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
No it doesn't.
quote:
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.
Why do you think someone would not consider the whole organism? People may study one trait at a time, but nowhere is the study of one trait deemed all there is.
quote:
So I can't see how you can say that biologists haven't much use for the simple formulation.
Because very rarely will you have a population without variation.
quote:
Unfortunately, I don't think I will find anyone who can understand this selection in a non-variation way, without an authoritative reference.
Can you understand this selection in a non-variation way? You have 1) no selection 2) selection of all equally or 3) selection among variations. Cases 1) and 2) are the same as case 3) but with the variable for the number of variations set to 1.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Syamsu, posted 01-04-2003 2:58 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Syamsu, posted 01-05-2003 8:11 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 68 (28439)
01-05-2003 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Syamsu
01-05-2003 8:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
Why would the simple formula cease to apply because there is variation?
Because you then most likely have differential success rates among variants.
quote:
Is phototsynthesis of plants inconsequential to describe because of some variation in the population?
What?
quote:
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.
Why do you think biologists do not consider photosynthesis as being subject to selection? Photosynthesis is the primary energy source for almost everything alive on Earth. Why would it not be considered? Honestly, Syamsu, I am having a hard time taking you seriously. A couple of minutes on Google and I found countless articles discussing photosynthesis and selection. Do you research your claims?
quote:
Actually differential reproductive success of variants is incompatible with the formulation of an organism reproducing or not reproducing.
ummm..... so, of two animals, one can have zero offspring and the other can have one; but this is incompatible with the first animal having one baby and the second animal having two? It makes no sense.
quote:
The complex formula is based on a comparitive view of organisms, the simple formula is based on an individual view of an organism.
You might notice that evolution DOES NOT WORK on individuals. Selection works on individuals, but evolution works on whole populations. The next generation is made up of the offspring of the survivors from the previous generation. You can't avoid that fact.
quote:
From the simple formula I would logically derive something named competitive reproduction or reproductive replacement, as someting close to differential reproductive success of variants.
Is this not precisely what you have been complaining about?
quote:
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.
Sounds just like the ToE.
quote:
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.
LOL.... sounds just like the ToE. This isn't much of a revolution you are planning.
quote:
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.
Right. Just like in the ToE. It strikes me that this is exactly what you have been complaining about. You state that 'the rest is environment to that organism.' Do you notice that 'the rest' includes that organism's kinsmen? This places them in competition, potentially at least. This is what offends you about the ToE.
[qutoe]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.[/quote]
And? .... sounds just like the ToE.
quote:
Evolution of species just hinging on the possibility of a mutant reproducing or not, according to the simple theory.
I don't know what to make of this post. Here you are proposing all of the things to which you object in the ToE. It makes no sense. You complain about the ToE, then reconstruct it.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Syamsu, posted 01-05-2003 8:11 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Syamsu, posted 01-05-2003 11:46 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 68 (28509)
01-06-2003 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Syamsu
01-05-2003 11:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
There aren't any articles that describe normal operation of photosynthesis in terms of Natural Selection.
There aren't any articles describing the conversion of light and various materials into biologically usable materials?
Maybe you don't realize that there are several TYPES of photosynthesis?
Maybe you don't realize that photosynthetic systems vary just like leg length or hair color?
quote:
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.
What exactly do you want? You want NS incorporated into a description of the actual chemical process of photosynthesis? Why? HOW?
quote:
Again, you forget the creation vs evolution debate runs on politics, not
Forget? Why would I need to remember? Why is this relevant?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Syamsu, posted 01-05-2003 11:46 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Syamsu, posted 01-06-2003 11:48 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 68 (28781)
01-10-2003 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Syamsu
01-06-2003 11:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
No I didn't realise that that there are as many variants of photosynthesis as there are colors of hair
Nor did I say this.
quote:
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.
Are you sure this is what you mean? Because you seem to be turning 180 degrees.
quote:
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.
Give an example. Make up something. How can one write about photosynthesis and selection in the manner you desire?
quote:
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.
Are you listening to yourself? You want to define SELECTION in a manner that does not involve selection. To select, you must have objects from which to select and those objects must have variations or there is no selection involved. You just grab one.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Syamsu, posted 01-06-2003 11:48 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Syamsu, posted 01-10-2003 4:48 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 68 (28800)
01-10-2003 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Syamsu
01-10-2003 4:48 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
And now you insist on variation for selection to apply?
No. I am just not being very clear. NS works just fine whether you have variation or not because things like the weather and predation do the 'selecting.' You seem to want to define NS in such a way that variation is NEVER a factor. And I hate to break it to you, but variation is almost always a factor.
quote:
The environment represents a filter to organisms for them to reproduce or not to reproduce. This filter is Natural Selection in my definition.
Just like in the current theory of NS...
quote:
By this definition, Natural Selection doesn't select on forms/variants but on individuals.
ummmm..... NS will always select on a form/variant even if that form is the same in all individuals-- ie a clone population. This quip about individuals not forms is silly. What does the environment effect if not the BODIES -- ie. forms -- of the individuals? This is what I was aiming at above. You seem to want to define NS in such a way that form is not a factor at all. Now you seem to have abstracted selection to the point that it functions of the meta-physical individual instead of the physical animal.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Syamsu, posted 01-10-2003 4:48 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Syamsu, posted 01-10-2003 9:41 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 68 (28859)
01-11-2003 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Syamsu
01-10-2003 9:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
Oh yes I forgot, the variation of 1. I think the emphasis on form is the platonic or meta physical individual notion, that is, you don't look to individuals you only look at different forms/varations of individuals.
What?
quote:
As in some other post:
The light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (positive selection pressure). If variation is a factor then it will show up in the environment somewhere as a factor.

What is the point?
quote:
You will not, to my best guess, find any use of selection like above on the web.[
Ya think....
photosynthetic variation - Google Search
Did you even look?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Syamsu, posted 01-10-2003 9:41 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Syamsu, posted 01-11-2003 11:29 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 68 (28889)
01-12-2003 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Syamsu
01-11-2003 11:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
Ah now you are referring me to articles about VARIATION AGAIN...I can't believe it...
Syamsu, are you insane?
The light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (positive selection pressure). If variation is a factor then it will show up in the environment somewhere as a factor.
These are your words. NOTICE THE LAST SENTENCE? It is ok for the variation to be a 'factor' but not for it to be named? This is ridiculous.
quote:
There is no use of the term selection on photosynthetis in the way I described *WITHOUT VARIATION*.
The 'way you describe' includes variation as a factor. Do you need your own words quoted back to you again?
Assume you could find a clone population of photosynthesizers the result of NS would be that the whole population lives or that the whole population dies. Not terribly interesting.
And I challenge you to find such a population for scientists to study. I bet you can't. Virtually all populations have variants. If you have variants, NS involves variants. You can't avoid this. Thus, what you find in the journals will also concern variants.
quote:
The point being that the definition of Natural Selection which doesn't require variation is not mainstream, as you asserted it was.
Do individuals in a clone population still die? I have lost count of the number of times I have asked this, but you have not once answered it that I remember. Do you think scientists do not realize that clone populations still succumb to bad weather?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Syamsu, posted 01-11-2003 11:29 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Syamsu, posted 01-12-2003 6:48 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 68 (28906)
01-12-2003 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Syamsu
01-12-2003 6:48 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
Can you deal with being wrong?
Yes, but I'm not. Can you deal with being pathologically stubborn and selectively blind?
quote:
You went looking on google with the keywords variation and photosynthesis. This you did in an effort to prove that the definition of Natural Selection without variation is mainstream. That makes no sense.
Actually, I went to Google looking for something that fit the definition you provided when I asked you what exactly you were looking for in reguard to photosynthesis and NS. This definition included the possibility of variation. But you have ignored that bit though I pointed it out to you lost post. You have a habit of doing that. You ignore truly stunning amounts of information.
I ask you again, what exactly do you want? Light hits chloroplast and.... what? And the chloroplast does its thing? That is about it. End of story.
quote:
It is interesting to look at photosynthesis in regards to the event of reproduction. Interesting to note that it contributes to reproduction, interesting to look at varying reproduction rates in regards to varying weatherconditions etc.
But varying reproduction rates in comparison to other organisms is not ok? This is absurd. You can't even keep variation out of your own definitions. It is you who has not thought this through.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Syamsu, posted 01-12-2003 6:48 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Syamsu, posted 01-12-2003 11:49 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 68 (28911)
01-12-2003 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Syamsu
01-12-2003 11:49 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
Can you deal with fine differences in arguments?
Apparently you cannot.
quote:
Yes, that's about it, light choloroplast, reproduction, end of story. As before, the light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (positive selection pressure). Now do this for every trait of the organism, and you have an interesting view of an organism. Identify the positive and negative selective "pressures" on an organism, and you know the basics about the organism. I don't think you can reasonably trivialize that knowledge.
Sure, Syamsu, a chemist or a bio-chemist may be quite interested but it tells us nothing about evolution. And evolution explaining evolution is the point of NS. This is what is so weird. You want to define NS is such a way that it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution requires the comparison of indivuduals, not just the study of one individual, even if it turns out that the individuals are clones.
quote:
As before, we can ignore variation of organisms most of the time for reproduction chances, since most of the time there is stasis, or so I'm told. It is reasonable to trivialize that knowledge.
LOL..... it is reasonable to trivialize a key element of evolution? Please note, evolution requires variation. NS does not. The two are different but intimately related.
quote:
It is not absolutely neccessary to use the formulation of differential reproductive success of variants for evolution.
We started out talking about NS and I agree that there is no need for variation. Now you are saying that the ToE does not require variation and on this you are dead wrong.
quote:
AFAIK origin of species (evolution) only requires for a mutation to contribute to reproduction. There is no absolute need to compare the reproductive success of the mutant with the ancestor population.
The varying reproductive success rates are the key features of evolution. You cannot eliminate it. Explain change in a population without using variation. I dare you. Pretend you have a population of trolls and an sudden ice age occurs. Describe the change in the population without using variation. If you can't do it, drop the argument. You have to tell me why some survive and some don't and you will be forced into the answer that some where different and that difference allowed them to survive. Period. If there are no differences they all live or they all die. If they all live there IS NO CHANGE IN THE SPECIES. No change means no evolution by definition. If they all die, well the species goes extinct and you still have no evolution.
Anxiously awaiting your answer.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Syamsu, posted 01-12-2003 11:49 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Syamsu, posted 01-12-2003 10:56 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 68 (28961)
01-12-2003 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Syamsu
01-12-2003 10:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
The reason some variants survive and others don't may be separate reasons.
What?
quote:
It is possible that one mutation gives rise to a new specie, which gives the minimum requirement for origin of species, for a mutation to contribute to reproduction.
This isn't close to the minimum requirement for speciation. You have a few mutations. You are not a new species. Everybody has mutations. Speciation is a lot more complicated than that.
quote:
This probably has occurred in Nature somewhere.
I sort-of doubt that one mutation could create a species.
quote:
Gradualness and for a trait to dominate the ancestorpopulation are both common but not therefore essential IMO.
Gradual change is not necessary? hmmm... rapid change -- ie. PE-- can and does happen but you seem to be pushing the 'hopeful monster' view. You actually believe that new species are created in one fell swoop with one mutation?
As for the trait not becoming dominant in the ancestor population, with whom does your hopeful monster mate? You can't found a new species with one individual, assuming the critter reproducies sexually.
quote:
I think it's deceptive to compare reproductive rates of variants when either both variants flourish or perish, which is allowed in differential reproductive success of variants.
So you now allow that NS can apply to clone populations but it is 'deceptive' ?
quote:
Mutant organisms may go into a different environment then their ancestor, which would also make comparison rather meaningless.
Yes, it would. We would no longer be talking about the same population but two seperate populations.
quote:
I would prefer competitive or replacement reproductive success of variants over differential reproductive success of variants, since with competition the variants influence each other's chance of reproduction, while with a differential they don't neccessarily influence each others reproductionrate.
Have you not been complaining about individuals competing with one another? Now this is what you prefer? This is very curious. I hope you do not vaccilate once again as this is indeed progress.
You are quibbling over the competitive/replacement bits. You are still talking about differential reproduction rates.
[qutoe]I'm not sure differential reproductive success has much of any merit at all. It's just like the theory of differential buildinglength, or differential lighintensity of stars, it's just a measurement standardization, not a mechanism.[/QUOTE]
Who said it was a mechanism? It is just a measurement standard. It is something we use to describe population change. It isn't some kind of force like magnetism. Environmental factors and mutation are the real mechanisms. The 'mechanism' of differential reproductive success is just shorthand for a whole slew of causal relationships.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Syamsu, posted 01-12-2003 10:56 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Syamsu, posted 01-13-2003 7:07 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 68 (29068)
01-13-2003 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Syamsu
01-13-2003 7:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
Where Social Darwinism comes from is from the comparison of forms and then saying one is better or more succesful then the other.
You are flogging a dead horse here, bud.
quote:
The basic definition would just be reproduction or no reproduction of an organism in relation to it's environment.
And if you include a critter's compatriots in the definition of 'environment' -- which you must-- then you have the NS as it stands. You travel great distances to restate natural selection.
quote:
Differential reproductive success of variants does not apply to clone populations, in mainstream usage.
Are the individuals in a clone population still subject to the forces of their environment? Why will you not answer this?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Syamsu, posted 01-13-2003 7:07 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Syamsu, posted 01-14-2003 2:29 AM John has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024