|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,409 Year: 3,666/9,624 Month: 537/974 Week: 150/276 Day: 24/23 Hour: 0/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5611 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwinist Creationists comments invited | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Can you tell us again then how with a clone you are going to get away within some history of Mendelism without variation for BIOLOGICAL CLONES for when I referred to closed curves and equilibria (chemical or otherwise) I had no specific materiality in mind that was subject to natural selection or not. I mean simply asserting some such complemntary(Bohr) philosophy and a recipe for nanotechonology of Macrothermodynamic sized stuff does not answer in the set of questions I have provided variously throughout this board.
I would love to have the shools teach biology in Mayrs sense of it as its own discipline but this seems years if not decades off for a leading evolutionary institution such as Cornell and I have no way to concieve how net education and hyperlinks would change this since it would not be something that Croizat could be applied semantically to rather depending on the naturalism actually in the case and then some.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
quote: Where do you get that idea from? PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5611 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Evolution and Philosophy: Tautology
"The current understanding of fitness is dispositional. That is to say, fitness is a disposition of a trait to reproduce better than competitors. It is not deterministic. If two twins are identical genetically, and therefore are equally fit, there is no guarantee that they will both survive to have equal numbers of offspring. Fitness is a statistical property." (John Wilkins, 1997) regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: So? One twin gets hit by a bus, the other doesn't. There is nothing genes can do about that. All things being equal, there are still freak accidents. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
quote: I'm afraid you're going to have to spell out for me why you think fitness = variation. The above seems to contradict you, if anything. PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5611 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
At the most you have found one definition of Natural Selection which could possibly be interpreted to not require variation, neglecting the far greater majority of those that do require variation.
Evenso I don't think it is intended to be interpreted to not require variation. Why would there be the word "greater" (fitness) in the definition at all then, if not to refer to difference in form that is related to the difference in fitness? They are equally fit when they are genetically identical, hence they would have to be variants, if one has greater fitness then the other. That is the logic of fitness, as far as I can tell. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
When Will Provine wrote his book on Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology and I was a student of his at Cornell he was searching for something that Wright asserted but Provine's seems even subsequently to no have appreciated that was reading more math into the theory of shifiting balance then it currently contained. Most likely Provine was looking for THREE levels of statical randomness but only found one.
I do not see how to reach your interpretation SYAMSU from your position even if stocastic phenomena are fancied in any way for though not necessarily providing a "contradication" there is no reason to think that Wright (say on Wolfram's notion) could not be understood A PRIORI to exclude the possibility you seem to be jockying for. At this point I would prefer the use of vital forces and altering the glossary of this site to stess less "non-mystical" natural selection. I also agree with JOHN. Really the only position I can see coming from your abstraction of evolutionary biology is one that is so hyperFORD/Fisher that you would have to eject the very real MOTIVATION that my grandfather had to do genetics and teach evolution. It may be that he was wrong but without this motive I would never have gained the knoweldge I now posses to post this response to you. It does seem to me nessary that some relation in one's biological "mind" must deal directly with population issues becasue with statitics we CAN indeed do something with them. I am however much for understanding if there are alternatives but again with the acutal understanding of history of population genetics I do not see how to further your notion but by confidence of individual systematists and THESE guys could not manage the middleware necessary to exchange biodiversity informatic info. I would be remiss if i did not try to incorporate what can be done into what could be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5611 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I can't really tell what you are arguing about here.
So there are freak accidents like getting hit by a bus, but also getting hit by a tramcar. You can class all these similar events according to frequency and their effect on chance of reproduction into a category representing a negative selective pressure on the event of reproduction, to make it more meaningful then one incident of getting hit by a bus. The basic idea is to describe the relation of organisms to their environment in regards to the possible event of their reproduction. That is Natural Selection as it should be, in my opinion. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: http://mama.indstate.edu/...lectures/Natural_Selection-6.PDF The above link has a fairly straightforward description. I cannot find the context of my quote via the link that you gave,but I would suggest that the 'operates' is referring to 'driving evolution'. Evolution by natural selection requires variation. Natural Selection doesn't. If you have a 'clone' population which is not suited toits environment, then population size will dimish over time as the 'chance of reproduction' of any individual is cut to zero by its failure to survive. My definition of survival encompasses natural demise or removalfrom the breeding population in any sense. The longer an individual remains in the breeding populationthe more offspring it will produce. Each individual has traits that cut short its durationin the breeding population should certain environmental factors prevail. IFF there is variation within the population, and this processcontinues over a number of generations evolution can be said to have ocurred. Natural selection is observable.Natural selection explains shifts in population trait frequencies. Natural selection drives evolution IFF there is variationwithin the population. Natural selection can happen without variation, but the effectis to either cut-down or increase the population size. e.g. If I leave a block of cheese in a warm, moist environment the blue-mould is selected for, if I leave the cheese in a refrigerator at 2 celsius the blue-mould is selected against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5611 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I think yours and Quetzal position was confusing to some degree, which is why I said you only "apparently" changed your position.
So would you think it better to see the definition of selection changed on this site, and every other site, to exclude variation as a requirement? Or do you think it better to leave them as they are? Do you maybe think it's not meaningful to look at selection without neccesarily looking at variation? I have given scientific arguments to these questions many times before why Natural Selection should basicly be defined in the individual way as I set out. ---I believe a great share of people taught Darwinism, will construe the definitions that require variation to be liarous, not just faulty, if it becomes known that Natural Selection can be defined without requiring variation. That is because Social Darwinism (talking about good/better and so on), and evolution is related to the definition with variation. Why make a definition that is biased towards evolution and Social Darwinism, when another one is more accurate? Especially intellectuals who have taken license from it in their books and movies, who relied on it as hard science for their work, would I guess be much miffed for Natural Selection to occur without this talk of one variant being better or more succesfull then the other etc. In the context of a long history of Darwinist scientists such as Darwin, Lorenz, Haeckel, Galton, Dawkins etc. lacing their works of "science" with Social-Darwinism it would mean a fundamental shift in the perception of Darwinist science. Again, selection on survival is simply a different theory then selection on reproduction. You want to have 2 theories, be my guest, but perhaps you should give them different names to be clear. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: They are already covered in the source material (which youdiscount for being prozaic). Darwin says there are two selection methods operating, oneis concerned with survival the other with mate selection. Natural selection is discussed in terms of variation in thecontext of evolution ... because evolution requires variation. NS is completely uninteresting if there is no variation,but it does not rely on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5611 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Actually the non-variational use of Natural Selection, would be the *main* thing in biology. For instance light (environment) on photosythesiscells of plants (organisms) constitutes a positive selection pressure (contributes to reproduction).
Of course now with so many endangered species, there would be even more interest in the non-variational definition of Natural Selection. You have no argument, as far as I can see. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: So you agree that there is no need for a General Theory ofReproduction since it is already covered by the existing concepts of evolutionary theory and natural selection?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5611 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
General theory of reproduction would be a more clear second name to Natural Selection.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: This argument started in post #15 where you posted:
Greater fitness only can refer to differing variants, not clones, in standard theory of Natural Selection. Apparently in support of this you post (#18):
"The current understanding of fitness is dispositional. That is to say, fitness is a disposition of a trait to reproduce better than competitors. It is not deterministic. If two twins are identical genetically, and therefore are equally fit, there is no guarantee that they will both survive to have equal numbers of offspring. Fitness is a statistical property." (John Wilkins, 1997) You appear to be arguing that John Wilkins' twins are outside NS because of the way he speaks of them. I point out that accidents can explain why NS is not deterministic.
quote: Right, which leaves you with the ToE. So.... what are YOU arguing here?
quote: And NS as it is, in my opinion. I really can't tell the difference. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024