Darwinist Creationists comments invited

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I can't really tell what you are arguing about here.

---

This argument started in post #15 where you posted: Apparently in support of this you post (#18): 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:

---

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.

---

Right, which leaves you with the ToE. So.... what are YOU arguing here?

quote:

---

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.

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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.

---

This is absurd. You are quibbling.Are the individuals in clone populations effected by environmental factors? If yes, you have no case.

quote:

---

The greater then bit is a Social-Darwinist add-on from Malthus theory from which the theory of Natural Selection largely derived.

---

Add-on? Malthus was a big influence on Darwin's formulation of the theory.And again, current evolutionary biology is not unaltered Darwinism. Why can you not understand this?

quote:

---

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.

---

I find an example and you discount it. LOL.... Ask me why you are not taken as seriously as you'd like?Besides which, it is the same damn formula whether you have one variant or many. You are quibbling. Think about the formula for acceration-- the change in velocity over time. The formula works whether time equals one or two or any other number. You don't need a new formula for one even though it is change over time. If the time specified is one, you have no change but the formual works. Similarly, NS works with one variant even though it is normally stated as refering to many variants.

quote:

---

Besides this is all much irrellevant. What's more important here is which definition is better, not which definition is mainstream.

---

It is the same damn formula.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I would be glad if the formula didn't require variation

---

Do the individuals in clone populations still die?

quote:

---

However the words "greater then", are obviously a reference to variation, otherwise the formulation would not make sense.

---

BS. Syamsu, this is in your head.

quote:

---

I'm afraid that when I would argue some professional biologist, I would likely be called a liar for saying that definition referred doesn't require variation. Again, most biologists I talked to explicitly deny Natural Selection without variation is valid.

---

The way that you present your ideas is so convuluted that I am not surprised if you cannot get scientists to agree with you. Most of the time you don't make sense even when you are on the right track. No offense.

quote:

---

They are of course not the same definitions, one requires variation, the other doesn't.

---

NS is what, Syamsu? The influence of the environment upon an individual. Where do you see the need for variation?

quote:

---

One involves a comparison on genotype/allelle the other doesn't.

---

If there is variation there is going to be differential success, and there nearly always is variation.

quote:

---

That you make no argumentation which definition is better, just shows to me you are trying to find an easy way out without actually making sound argument.

---

Why would I make an argument for which is better when I think they are pretty much the same thing? NS works on individuals. Any study of a population will involve comparison. That comparison may reveal a clone population but will far more often reveal differential reproductive rates. That is, some animals will live and some will die. You don't like this but I don't see how you can avoid it.

quote:

---

Would you really not object if you found the short definition that didn't require variation to apply was in a dictionary or glossary?

---

Do I really believe what I claim to believe? No, I'm an idiot and a liar. Damned offensive question, Syamsu.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I don't think it's true that variation manipulates reproduction most of the time.

---

What? I didn't say variation manipulates reproduction. I said variation is present virtually all the time. And if it is present it going to be a factor.

quote:

---

I think it's more likely that environmental variation such as weather and variation in numbers of predators and food are much bigger varying factors.

---

Yes, perhaps so, but you cannot eliminate that the organisms themselves have variation.I'm not even sure where you are going with this. No one disputes that the environment-- weather, predation, competition, whatever-- is a huge factor. But the environment does not mate and reproduce, the organism does. It is the genetic information passed along thereby that drives the evolution of a population.

quote:

---

So it would be more warranted to make a definition of Natural Selection with varying weather and food etc. then to make a definition of Natural Selection with variant organisms.

---

Just like the one we have. What do you think does the 'selecting' if not the environment?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I'm saying we do not have a standard formulation of differential reproductive success of same organisms in varying environments, but we do have a standard formulation of differential reproductive success of variants in the same environment.

---

This is just silly. I don't know what else to say. Try to learn something and get back to me.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com