|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwinist Creationists comments invited | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I'm calling for Darwinist Creationists to respond to my reformulation of Natural Selection into a general theory of reproduction, which I posted before under the name "Darwinist language". I think that creationists may be more open to criticism of Darwinism then evolutionists, and I'm hoping that to explictly invite their comments will create some response from them.
You are a Darwinist Creationist when:1. you believe in creation as opposed to believing in macro-evolution (for instance you don't believe that an apelike creature was the ancestor of a human being) 2. you believe in micro-evolution (for instance you do believe a blue rose is the ancestor of a red rose), and describe it with Natural Selection I would like to invite some opinion on changing the language of thetheory 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 eachbeing, 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 leadingto 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 thenreproduction, 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 thereforeit 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 instandard 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 notactually 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 thepresent because of the lack of variation in them. But imagine that there would be variation in the present population offlowers that corresponds with a difference in reproductionrate. Each flower is struggling to survive. Those that survive the longestwill 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 thatfailing to reproduce means you will live shorter. Still this is standard Darwinian language that I'm sure you are familiar with, if you have read a minimum of Darwinist literature. After some time, the blue flowers compete the red flowers intoextinction, 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 sensethe 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 extinctionof the one by the other, leading us to neglect the other possibilities. I find it also deceptive that the chance of reproduction is contrastedsolely 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. Think about applying Darwinism to whiteskinned and blackskinned people. Think about how narrowminded it is to identify a supercomplex organism like a human being just in terms of the pigment of one organ as Darwinists do, and then to note the one as "better" then the other. What seems peaceful at first, a field of flowers, is by Darwinistterminology reduced to a murderous deathstruggle between reds and blues. You shouldn't have these problems with a general theory ofreproduction 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 allorganisms 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 youcan 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 selectingbetween 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 meaningfulto 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 standardtheory 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. Notice that a general theory of reproduction covers thescientific content of standard Natural Selection theory, but it puts it in a broader perspective where other scenario's besides variational competition apply. This change is not about changing the scientific content. There is a mix of scientific benefit and emotional benefit to changing Natural Selection this way 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 broader and neutral perspective of a general theory of reproduction, are great. Maybe it needs psychological research to prove that the differences inperception 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. - to view in terms of standard Natural Selection theory means to sorta population in two groups identified by one differing characteristic, and to view this characteristic as being the cause of the other characteristic's eventual extinction through the one having higher rates of reproduction then the other in an environment of limited resources. - to view in terms of a general theory of reproduction, is to view how an organism reproduces in relation to it's environment. (and any competition, change of environment, variation, mutation etc. as incidental to that view. incidental meaning there's not always meaningful competition, there's not always meaningful variation etc.) regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I'm glad you responded, most of all because it keeps the subject on the listalltopics page...
Red flowers will have decreased chance of reproduction in relation to the creature eating them, and blue flowers will have increased chance of reproduction, in relation to there being less red flowers. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
To deal with your hazyness about why the theory of Natural Selection sould be rephrased.
The problems of Darwinism: 1 - the narrow view of organisms that Darwinism leads to, by Darwinists typically identifying an organism by one trait ie. identifying a moth by it's wingcolor (peppered moth), or for instance identifying a supercomplex human being by the color of one organ. Through Darwinism we have come to know about the wingcolor of moths, but nothing much else about the moth. 2 - the judgementalism in Darwinist language saying one is better, more succesfull, then the other, which is emotionally repugnant 3 - the theory almost never applies to organisms because of the lack of variational competition in most populations. it's not much use when we want to save some specie, when we need to know how much light a plant needs for reproduction for instance. 4 - goalbased thinking because of reference to struggle(I have not worked this out in my original post, but any struggle neccesarily requires some goal to be struggling for) I don't understand what you are saying with survival. In your previous post it came down to reproduction, as I've shown, not survival. It always comes down to reproduction, because reproduction overcomes death. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
The species that are currently in danger of becoming extinct, are less adapted to their environment, they have become less fit, they are being selected out, etc. I think it's safe to say that you can understand the usage of words like this. But still somehow you think it's wrong to use words that way, because then you would have to reinterpret your standard Darwinist terminology as variational competition. A mere 1 of *many* possible subsets to a general theory of reproduction.
The flowers that get eaten have a reproduction chance approaching zero. I don't see how your example neccecitates fewing flowers in terms of survival. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I think it's probable that the species currently going extinct would have marketable economic value in the near future, as a matter of interest for genetechnology.
Anyway, I wasn't talking about if we should conserve or not at all. I was just talking about wordusage, where Darwinists use weird definitions for fitness, being adapted, and selection etc. My usage of those words in the previous post is *wrong* bij Darwinist standards, although at the same time perfectly comprehensible to anyone, including you. Your insistence on survival is not an argument. You can disregard it as I've shown. You apply the survival filter, but then of course you are left with those that do survive but do *not* reproduce, so you still need to apply the reproduction filter after you applied the survival filter. Occam's razor says you can just do away with the survival filter, it adds no meaning to the equation. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I think it's better to ignore Darwin, if you want to have a scientific theory. Darwin, like Dawkins, like Haeckel, like Lorenz etc. writings are simply too prozaic to be used as science. Their works are generally known to be prozaic, this is not just me saying that. You might use elements from their writings to construct a scientific theory, but I think it's mistaken to refer to their work as science theories in themselves.
Again, you have no argument. I am not ignoring survival, I am just not being prejudicial towards survival. Just like I am not being prejudicial towards variation, or competition among variants. Sometimes the environment changes, like now with the endangered species, so that a population becomes less adapted to their environment. Darwinist focus on competition between variants, leads to ignore scenario's like this. Again, there is an enormous amount what you ignore with standard Darwinism, I refer you to the earlier posts in this thread. You really show no understanding of my arguments when you now trot out that I'm supposedly ignoring something. You will likely end up ignoring reproduction by focusing on survival, while focusing on reproduction like I do, will not lead to "meaningfully" ignoring survival. That's because survival apart from reproduction is much meaningless to look at, since in the near future all organisms will die. So focusing on reproduction includes survival. ( Except maybe for things like elderly organisms, who have no chance of reproduction at all. But even so for these elderly organisms I think it is meaningful knowledge to know that they will not reproduce and inevitably die, although on the other hand I think it's questionable to view things in terms of properties they don't have.) I think my discussion with you has come to the point, where I should politely ask you to change your opinion, and to agree with me that a general theory of reproduction has merit over a Darwinist theory of Natural Selection. If you would look to my previous posts, you should be able all to find answers for all your arguments there. When you argue like "seems to be an attempt to justify", "kind of like" etc. then it should be clear to yourself also that you have run out of content for your arguments. You are just arguing on suspicions and the authority of established science, but there is no real content that I can see. Tell me, if you would have a biology textbook, with a chapter on a generaly theory of reproduction, would you accept it, or find it faulty? In this chapter competition among variants would show up as one paragraph (Darwinism), and a change in environment leading to less adapted organisms would be in another paragraph (as with endangered species), and so on. The thing that binds all paragraphs together in the chapter is to view organisms in terms of their chance of reproduction. In this way a cohesive and broad perspective on Nature is attained, that is flexible to deal with the sometimes extreme unicity and complexity of the organic world. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I looked it up, both you and Quetzal have apparently changed your minds about variation being a requirement for Natural Selection to apply. You first said it is a requirement, and now you both say it isn't. I'm thinking you have both changed your mind on account of what I wrote, in an almost subconscious way. You are both now outside the mainstream of science, you will not find much of any support for your position on the web. There are no definitions of Natural Selection on the web which do not require variation that I can find. So I guess you need to consider your position now, and actually argue which definition of Natural Selection is better. The one that requires variation or the one which doesn't require it.
http://EvC Forum: Falsification theory of Natural Selection -->EvC Forum: Falsification theory of Natural Selection "Natural selection only operates when there is an environmentalpressure which one variant can exploit more effectively than another." (Peter) "Perhaps a recap may be in order. Natural selection follows from these basic assumptions: 1. There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness, visual acuity." (Quetzal) I don't think I've changed my mind about survival being faulty. It is faulty to use for selection because all organisms die. Of course you can define something anyway you want, but to exclude reproduction, or to look to survival outside of what benefit it has for reproduction, makes your definition unusuable to look at reproduction with modification (evolution). regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Greater fitness only can refer to differing variants, not clones, in standard theory of Natural Selection.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
General theory of reproduction would be a more clear second name to Natural Selection.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
It's not reasonable to interpret greater fitness as possibly applying to identical organisms, when in all other formulations of Natural Selection greater fitness refers to variants. A formulation of Natural Selection that does not require variation simply wouldn't use the word greater.
The greater then bit is a Social-Darwinist add-on from Malthus theory from which the theory of Natural Selection largely derived. And again, you may have found one definition which possibly applies in a nonvariational way, but that still leaves all the other definitions which require variation for them to apply. Besides this is all much irrellevant. What's more important here is which definition is better, not which definition is mainstream. Seeing that the short definition applies more generally (includes describing functioning of traits in regards to their reproduction, endangered species etc.), so gives a more cohesive view then the definition that requires variation, it is better then differential reproductive success of variants. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024