Darwinist Creationists comments invited

I know ... I know ... I'm not a creationist but I just
couldn't resist answering this one (again).Although this time your example and objections have supported
NOT viewing NS in terms of reproduction.You have rightly pointed out that the propagation capabilties
(i.e. reproductive capability) of the two varieties do not
contribute to survival of the individual plant.You have also suggested that a change in the environment (insects
that like only blues changing to mix of insects some of whom
like red and others blue) will have an effect on the colour
ratios iin the field.BUT you have avoided a line of reasoning that says that there
is a creature that just loves to eat red flowers but not blue
ones. What would be the effect of this on populations, and how
is it explainable solely in terms of reproduction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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

---

As soon as you bring in the 'chance of reproduction', you are opening
up the field to consider more than just the 'event of reproduction.In some ways the mechanisms etc. do not change by rephrasing,
but the need to re-phrase is a little hazy to me (as I'm sure
you noticed before )In my previous post the major reason for dominance of one
colour over the over becomes a matter of expected survival
chance ... i.e. I am more likely to survive if I am red than
if I am blue, therefore over time, red flowers become the
dominant hue in the field.That's as good a description of classical natural selection
as I have heard.I agree that there are also 'sexual selection' criteria, but
then Darwin also pointed that out when he orginated the theory
(or formalised it I guess).I do not believe that survival instincts are motiovated
by the need to reproduce, but that rather those with better
survival instincts DID survive to reproduce and pass on that
chracteristic to their young.The two things support one another but are not directly
related.I doubt that a gazelle runs from a cheetah because it thinks
'Oh no! If I get eaten I won't be able to perpetuate the
species!!'I certainly don't think that way when I'm running away from
a howling mob with pitchforks and torches ... Ok so that's
never actually heppened to me (yet ) but hopefully you
asee why I separate survival and reproduction (although
both are needed for evolution (or just plain perpetuation)
of species).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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.

---

Examples intended to elaborate aspects of evolutionary theory
do tend to be narrow. That's deliberate in order to illustrate
a point. It's often easier to describe a complex theory in
terms of simpler, yet illustrative and relevent models.Evolution is not concerned with understanding individual
organisms, but the process(es) by which diversity of life
has emerged.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

2 - the judgementalism in Darwinist language saying one is better, more succesfull, then the other, which is emotionally repugnant

---

I don't believe I have come across ToE descriptions that
claim that any animal is 'better' than another.Saying that one species is more successful than another
with respect to perpetuation is not an emotive judgement,
but a simple statement of observed fact.In the flower field if red becomes dominant we say it is the
more succesful species in terms of species survival ... no
judgement of better-ness, just a plain observed fact.For example, in Darwinian terms all of the 'races' of man
are equal, because they are equally successful at perpetuating
themselves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

Evolution NEVER applies to organisms .... organisms cannot
evolve only species can.Conservation is an entirely different subject matter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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)

---

All organsims have a goal (an even in your stated thinking you
imply this) ... that is to survive and produce offspring.BUT that is just one weltenshaung (world view), and is a way of
expressing an interpretation of the way nature works.Animals do struggle to survive and reproduce ... you can see that
happening ... we get into a whole instinct/intellect
debate then which is not relevent to evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

Suppose all plants capable of bearing blue flowers were eaten
as young shoots because they tasted good. Their absence from
the field is related solely to their survival rate, not
their reproduction rate.An simplified illustration of the need to treat survival and
reproduction separately admittedly, but ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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

---

If one set of flowers are largely wiped out before they can
reproduce, then the reason for their low reproductive chance
is directly linked to their survival rate.Survival acts as a filter on the population and needs to be
considered separately from reproduction.An animal can have everything it needs for successful reproduction
within it's environment ... but get eaten by a wandering lion
before it gets the chance.The effect of survival on populations is not a reproduction
issue.And in terms of conservation I am in two minds ... if creatures
cannot adapt to their environment why should they survive ...
but if those changes are wrought by man should we not correct
them and save those creatures.It's an unnerving problem once you try to remove one's
emotional response to the issue.

Darwin pointed out that there is 'survival selection' and
'sexual selection' ... that is females choose males (or
vice versa) based upon some species specific criteria.Survival is a higher order filter than sexual selection.Even the 'ugliest' of creatures WILL mate if there are none
others left to mate with (well one other obviously )Genetic drift will not drive evolution, survivability can.By insisting on neglecting survival as a consideration seems to
be an attempt to justify not accepting ToE by removing the
major driving force behind it.It's kind of like saying 'Well forget about the engine in your
car, now tell me how is that a conveyance?'

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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.

---

Could you define what you mean by scientific theory please, I feel
it may be a little different to my understanding of the phrase.Darwin set out to explain the diversity of life on earth (an observation).He made field studies, collecting data on species that showed diversity.He found a link between variation and environment.He then theorised that natural selection and descent with
modification were sufficient to explain his observations.I don't see how that isn't a scientific theory ... you cannot
model everything mathematically.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

Studying animals in terms of reproduction does not illuminate
the issues surrounding diversity of life on earth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

In what way?And how does Darwinism focus on competition?The peppered moths were not in competition with one another
in that oft quoted example of NS. Some were more likely to
be eaten ... but they weren't in a direct competition to be
eaten.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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,

---

Evolution is about the way in which species change over time ...
by definition this includes and requires reproduction, but there
is more to it that reproduction.By stating that something is a ''general theory of reproduction''
and then claiming that such a theory includes everything that
evolutionary theory already covers seems convoluted to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
while focusing on reproduction like I do, will not lead to "meaningfully" ignoring survival.

---

How do you know that ... by neglecting it as an area of
significant worth/study you can easily miss important
explanation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

That's because survival apart from reproduction is much meaningless to look at, since in the near future all organisms will die.

---

Survival chance can be meaningfully looked at sans reproduction.Factors affecting an individuals survival play a key role in
understanding the evolutionary explanation of diversity of
life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

So focusing on reproduction includes survival.

---

How?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

( 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.)

---

Survival only means maximising life-span.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

I've been over this with you at some depth over some time
now ... and have seen a subtle shift in your arguments away
from saying that NS is false, and that survival isn't important
to a stance where survival is encompassed by GToR. If you continue
as objectively as you can you will start to see that Darwinist
ToE addresses the concerns of diversity of life, and that
conservation is an entirely separate issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

I'm English ... I was just being polite

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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?

---

As a trained researcher I don't accept any work on it's own.I have spent many years discussing the pros and cons of
ToE as well as debating/discussing creationist view points.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

Your distinction between organisms changing and the environment
changing is simply stating the two possible contributors that
provoke natural selection ... the key is 'change'.Something changes, and it's a whole new ball game.

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.

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.

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?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
This is not like the one we have.

​

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.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Yes we do ... re-read all the peppered moth stuff!!!!!That example is all about one organism (the peppered moth)
in a changing environment (pre to post industrialised Britain).Natural selection literally means 'selection by nature' ...
what aspect of nature do you think this means?Your understanding (or lack of it) of NS and how it relates
to individuals and populational change is your downfall here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I was just talking about the definition of differential reproductive success of variants. Varying environments is not part of that definition.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Yes it is, becuase the whole 'fitness' thing is a reference to
how well suited an individual is to its environment ... that's
what 'fitness' means. The reproductive success of an individual
can be different in different environments ... like the
peppered moths. The whole example is about how a change in the
environment caused a shift in trait frequencies in the moth
population due to differential reproductive success.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I'm just looking at the definition now, I can't find it. It would have been easy to clearly include it, then it would have been formulated as differential reproductive success in varying environments, or differential reproductive success of variants in varying environments.

---

Not sure of the exact wording of the definition you have, but
it will likely be along the lines that::'NS is where some individuals have a greater chance of reproduction
than others due to greater fitness.'The 'fitness' part refers to a relationship with the environment.