Darwinist Creationists comments invited

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Greater fitness only can refer to differing variants, not clones, in standard theory of Natural Selection.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Where do you get that idea from?PE

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

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:
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

---

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

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

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.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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 environmental
pressure 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

---

http://mama.indstate.edu/...lectures/Natural_Selection-6.PDFThe 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 to
its 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 removal
from the breeding population in any sense.The longer an individual remains in the breeding population
the more offspring it will produce.Each individual has traits that cut short its duration
in the breeding population should certain environmental factors
prevail.IFF there is variation within the population, and this process
continues 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 variation
within the population.Natural selection can happen without variation, but the effect
is 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.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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

---

They are already covered in the source material (which you
discount for being prozaic).Darwin says there are two selection methods operating, one
is concerned with survival the other with mate selection.Natural selection is discussed in terms of variation in the
context of evolution ... because evolution requires variation.NS is completely uninteresting if there is no variation,
but it does not rely on it.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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

---

So you agree that there is no need for a General Theory of
Reproduction since it is already covered by the existing
concepts of evolutionary theory and natural selection?

General theory of reproduction would be a more clear second name to Natural Selection.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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