Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinist Creationists comments invited
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 33 of 43 (28888)
01-11-2003 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by John
01-11-2003 1:17 PM


I would be glad if the formula didn't require variation, because then I could show some authority for my sort of definition. However the words "greater then", are obviously a reference to variation, otherwise the formulation would not make sense. 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.
They are of course not the same definitions, one requires variation, the other doesn't. One involves a comparison on genotype/allelle the other doesn't. 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.
Would you really not object if you found the short definition that didn't require variation to apply was in a dictionary or glossary?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John, posted 01-11-2003 1:17 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by John, posted 01-12-2003 12:33 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 35 of 43 (28895)
01-12-2003 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by John
01-12-2003 12:33 AM


You just don't seem to have thought this through.
I don't think it's true that variation manipulates reproduction most of the time. 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. 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. Most often these varying organisms are 1 organism which has a mutation which makes some attribute not function, a deleterious allelle, and the rest of the population has the allelles as they had them before. Deleterious allelles are not very meaningful to look at IMO, but that is the main application of differential reproductive success of variants.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by John, posted 01-12-2003 12:33 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by John, posted 01-12-2003 10:53 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 37 of 43 (28905)
01-12-2003 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by John
01-12-2003 10:53 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by John, posted 01-12-2003 10:53 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by John, posted 01-12-2003 3:29 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 39 by Peter, posted 01-13-2003 2:16 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 40 of 43 (28981)
01-13-2003 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Peter
01-13-2003 2:16 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Peter, posted 01-13-2003 2:16 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Peter, posted 01-15-2003 1:59 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 42 of 43 (29171)
01-15-2003 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Peter
01-15-2003 1:59 AM


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.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Peter, posted 01-15-2003 1:59 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Peter, posted 01-15-2003 4:01 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024