|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwinist language | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5059 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
OK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5059 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
The subject of "variation" is very 'tricky'. If one looks at Fisher's demeanor to Wright the whole "tension" (which I do not think existed but transiently, historically) seems reducible in this exemplar of population genetics to Wright's having CHOSEN for the sake of getting something done a Measure of Variation. This done, Wright made calculations and at least in one case was able to find an error in Fisher's RESULT Before he did by his own intended method (on fitness etc). IF Variation were every to be in a theoretical position of naught this state of computational biology *would* (maybe too strong?) be approached by instead of this person-on-person disagreement but a symmetrical distribution variety of variation biometrics. I can see the need clearly in data of the classical genetics period and Wright even suggested the need for a statistical refinement to his approach. We are finding in stead that Fisher's Ford etc to Dawkins etc et al take over this domain of talk to such a sociobioloigcal extent that if once used as criticizm of Wright can not be used for evolutionary dissusions and remains only plausible for creationists to pick up the double edge and hence suffer interminably from internal problems of evolutionary nature. Natural Selection COULD?? be the problem, at least this is how Wolfram thinks and I am beginning to gess Syamsu too, but I still see middle ground here.
One could DEFINE zero variation but we need a symmetrical measure which in theory we do not have. I suspect, but not having done the homework I can not say for certain, that Haldane can be modified to approach this kind of magnitude without affecting the inprint wording or the historically significant interaction between Fisher and Wright. It would be possible to construct such an emprics on the basis of Maxwell's IMAGINARY FLUID for which reason I started the VAIN FARADAY SEARCH THREAD, so as to see if we have enough talent on this web site to stick to a closed curve about this work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5059 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Ok, I guess we did not communicate. It is possible that PERVERSIONS as per Gibbs statistical mechanics permit pure reproduction espeically if engineerable in Wolfram's notion of formulas interacting with formulas. I never said that I *knew* what point set meant for any formula you may be refering to. It is not true that in Cantor's sense (of infinty) at least that reproduction is not the application. Reproduction in nature is not Random. That is an abstraction made in factor genetics which need not even have been the claim against Mendel that he had used %rational% numbers when the actuality was only an approximation yet Mendel could have been correct. You do not seem to be displaying in your "reproduction" any ability to utilize "theory" relative to biology in the raw and cold etc. I am sorry I must depart ways with you on this point.
I know you wrote this to JOHN but my comments, stand, I believe; nonetheless. [This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-01-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5059 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
A frog does not live in a sock. If one looks at a book published in Auburn NY the same few years as Darwin's origin one can see represented just about all we visually know today about anurans. You are free to follow NOBLE if you wish. I am not averse to imaginig frog call types as per transverse and longitudinal transmission mediately thru both the physical envirnoment and any reproduced one on fertilization (genetic). One does not necessarily need natural selection if one makes a staright line description in terms of orthogenesis. With respect to Frogs I and an unusal mutation from Western NY I suggested to Will Provine the extent this chemically reversibly can be thought by showing that it also has input to notions of adapation independent of simply understood gene frequency changes (ie cutting in solids and not liguids (gene pool). But that is a speicalist subjectivity and only provides herpetological motivatation not necessarily communicable knowledge. When I tried to communicate about snakes for instance all I was told was to go back to NJ which showed me they authority I was trying to work with did not know snakes as I did. I think you have assumed something from whatever it is you read I wrote. Sincerely, Brad. I do believe I commented something like this to you before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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: Stasis is the norm. So what? True or false this makes no difference.
quote: ummmm..... what kind of variation is there? Different-from-the-other-guy-- that kind of variation.
quote: Such would be included. These would be the individuals who don't survive.
quote: Bingo.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[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: Then ask them if things still die when variation reaches zero.
quote: I suspect this has a lot to do with semantics.
quote: 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: No it doesn't.
quote: 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: Because very rarely will you have a population without variation.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Because you then most likely have differential success rates among variants.
quote: What?
quote: 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: 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: 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: Is this not precisely what you have been complaining about?
quote: Sounds just like the ToE.
quote: LOL.... sounds just like the ToE. This isn't much of a revolution you are planning.
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5059 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Are you relying on Weismann to explain the Haekelgut/stomach that MAyr could not in one long argument get out of his tadpole mind? If not, then the burden of proof is indeed on you. I need only the tadpole, Mayr need's the bird of paradise when not any one PICK-A-Form. Touch it bidirectionally however.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024