Darwinism and Nazism

I'm sorry, you don't agree then with the usage of selection in the photosynthesis example? I think it would be better for discussion if people state their opinions with argument. It's possible I've mistaken your position, I certainly won't insist on what your position is if you tell me it is otherwise.Are you saying that the use of Natural Selection on a clonal population is only valid in respect to another population which does have variation?Do you agree that selection describes the relation of an organism to it's environment in regards to the event of it's reproduction?edited to add: where you previously talked about variation not being a requirement for selection to apply"I certainly agree with John inre natural selection not requiring variation (although I would probably drop the reproduction part simply because ns refers to survival, while "survival until reproduction" relates more to how we define fitness - but that's just a quibble), and evolution requiring variation (note the distinction)."http://EvC Forum: Darwinist language -->EvC Forum: Darwinist languageregards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 01-20-2003]

I don't know what your talking about with species level. My concept of selection is I think already explained with the photosynthesis example. Any other uses of selection would be derived from that most basic simple form of selection.You are wrong about Percipient. Even you should admit it is rather bizarre Percipient keeps insisting I am criticizing evolution, while actually I am criticizing selection. I've had this kind of misrepresentation before where everybody joined in, in misrepresenting. There is no limit to how deep this sort of restatement of another's position can sink, if it's not countered by a moderator.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

For example: light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (positive selection).As shown selection basically describes the relation of an organism to it's environment, in regards to the event of it's reproduction.I'm not sure how or if, you are invalidating this usage with your reference to marginal fitness. In any case you previously said that selection is just about surviving or not surviving. It is hard for me to understand if that is true, then why selection is not commonly defined that way.NS is now commonly defined as differential reproductive success of variants. This formulation is inapplicable where variation is not relevant, such as with endangered species, or with the photosynthesis example.It also, quite rightly IMO, doesn't talk about survival at all as you do. Survival selection, and reproduction selection are two distinct theories, where survival selection strictly speaking, is inapplicabe to evolution theory, except if we begin to talk about evolution within the lifespan of an individual.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The photosynthesis example has been posted in this thread, which you apparently don't read to well.You are making an argument from majority which is a logical fallacy. It doesn't make it more true if many people say it is true. You also ignore the magic working of groupthink.On account of the groupthink in this thread, John in another thread is now redefining variation to mean that if you have just one sort then you already have variation.http://EvC Forum: Darwinist language -->EvC Forum: Darwinist languageThings are getting out of hand...regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I accused you of lying when you did not take back your position after I made numerous references to people who, while not wholly sharing my position, hold opinions on things similar as my argument. Things which you supposedly don't understand, and supposedly want to understand.The first time you asked it, I already said that it's wholly my own opinion. Why then did you continue to ask this question several more times, if I already told you all you wanted to know? Why didn't you talk about the arguments I refferred you too at all, if you really wanted to know? Why do you insist on using the word evolution for my argument while I use the word selection?Below some arguments about the requirement for variation:http://EvC Forum: Minimum requirements for applying Natural Selection -->EvC Forum: Minimum requirements for applying Natural SelectionJohn:
"Not really. You are bleeding into the ToE aspects. Natural selection is "If an individual survives long enough it reproduces, if it doesn't survive long enough it does not reproduce." That's it, really. There is no need for variants at all. You could have clones-- no variation at all-- and this would still apply. This kind of variant-less population is what triggered the Irish potatoe famine. Most of the potatoes grown in the affected areas were so closely related that once a disease -- an agent of natural selection-- took hold it ran wild."Quetzal:
"I certainly agree with John inre natural selection not requiring variation (although I would probably drop the reproduction part simply because ns refers to survival, while "survival until reproduction" relates more to how we define fitness - but that's just a quibble), and evolution requiring variation (note the distinction)."I can't be bothered to find a reference for the survival of the fittest argument, but it goes like this.Survival of the fittest is a tautology/misleading. It's also conducive to Social Darwinism. Darwin didn't invent it but the Social Darwinist Herbert Spencer did. Note: I don't actually support this argument myself.As far as I can tell you have difficulty with the word "also"
in above argument.There are actually developments in the discussion, although I still have to repeat a lot to the same person many times, and I do actually come up with different examples to make it more clear sometimes. However it's not possible to convince those who are unwilling. But as before, there would be no problem to convince an "innocent" student of my formulation. The misunderstanding is between your formulation and mine, but my formulation on it's own would not be misunderstood.I don't understand why you reference a 150 year old prosastyle popular press book. The merit of a definition is not about authority, it is about which definition is better for describing Nature.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Light in relation to photosynthesis does contribute to reproduction, as can be experimently established by taking away the light. We then know that if we want to save some plant from extinction, that it needs light to reproduce. I think it's pretty important to keep touch with practical biology.By positive selection I merely mean a relation to the environment which contributes to reproduction, as there are other relations which hinder reproduction which is then called negative selection.Again, I doubt if selection is generally understood as you say, since for example, the glossary of this site, and the usenet talk.origins faq have a different definition.The "better then" part, is not absolutely neccessary. What is absolutely neccessary for origin of new species is mutation and reproduction, the rest is happenstance.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It is still an argument from majority.According to Quetzal and John, Natural Selection is already pretty much defined as I want it to be, and commonly understood. Quetzal defines it essentially as survival or no survival, John as survival until reproduction, or no survival until reproduction, I define it as reproduction or no reproduction. Why not discuss it with them if you don't understand it?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

In my own experience, the relation to Social Darwinism comes from comparing organisms, using words like good and bad. Also the term success or struggle, which posits reproduction, or survival as a worthy goal.It should be clear now to everyone that the popular formulation of Natural Selection is biased towards evolution, which formulation unfortunately unusable for describing endangered species.Also, there are other possible adaptive evolutionary scenario's which fall outside differential reproductive success of variants. Mainly the extent to which a mutant organism inhabits a different environment then it's ancestor falls outside the standard formulation. So there is again bias in the formulation there, this time towards those evolution scenario's that present a limited set of shared resources between variants, in stead of partly shared, or not shared resources.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamu

The popular formulation of selection is differential reproductive success of variants (as in the glossary of this site, and in the talk.origins faq, as well as countless scientific papers).This is not the basic concept of Natural Selection, as you agree. Obviously the popular formulation is unusable for situations where variation is irrellevant, since it requires it. (except if you follow John's argument that variation can be understood as just 1 sort).It is useless to look at how fast the 3 leaved clover is disappearing compared to the 4 leaved clover in some area. There isn't neccesarily any significant difference between the disappearancerates.It's generally useless to look at variation when looking at endangered species, except in a way that runs counter to the logic of differential reproductive succes of variants. Apparently there should be some minimum variation for long term reproductionstability.Of course the basic formulation of Natural Selection still applies to endangered species, because it doesn't require variation.Darwin and Wallace both got their idea for origin of species, from Malthus. The idea is based on competition for limited resources. There are just a few resources, a mutant who has an "advantage", will replace the ancestor variant, like that. It doesn't deal with scenario's from the perspective that there are large amounts of oppurtunities for reproduction, if only a mutation occured which corresponds to the niche.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Species generally get endangered because of massive change in the environment. No small variation is going to help them out of that.Malthus's competitive population pressure is not a neccessary requirement for origin of species, in fact it could more likely be argued that populationpressure wipes out many beneficial mutation. When there is pressure to some environmental limit, then chance plays a greater role which organism gets to reproduce, hence beneficial mutations may be destroyed by chance due to populationpressure.As before the only requirement for origin of species is for a mutation that contributes to reproduction. Your insistence on variation does not make sense to me.Clearly it is ridiculous to compare the reproductionrate of elephants and ants for instance. It provides no meaningful knowledge. The only time when comparison of reproductionrates provides meaningful knowledge is if there is some sort of competitive replacement going on, equivalent to the reproductionrates (as was argued on account of Malthus). In fact you could better do away with the comparison, and just mention something like a replacementrate. But there isn't neccessarily this replacementrate with any new mutation. The need for comparison of reproductionrate with an ancestor form is then baseless, since they can inhabit (partly) separate environments. Therefore to focus on a scenario of populationpressure to describe origin of species, is simply bias towards scenario's of limited shared resources.I must say though that population pressure is only strongly implied by differential reproductive success of variants, it's not actually part of the definition. It's wrong because it is useless/deceptive.As a rule, I think it's better to focus on actual physical relationships, where the one influences the reproductionrate of the other, then focus on non-physical measurement standards, which is what "differential reproductive success of variants" amounts to. It is in essence no different then the theory of differential lightintensity of stars, which is just a measurement standardization.I'm not sure why I am arguing anymore, since actually you agree to the basic definition of Natural Selection. What would it matter to discuss the merit/demerit of "differential reproductive success of variants" when it is already shown and accepted not to be the basic formulation of Natural Selection?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The formulation of NS as "differential reproductive success of variants" is biased towards evolution, and within that bias towards evoluton, it biased towards evolutionary scenario's of limited shared resources. There is no bias in the basic formulation of Natural Selection. Unfortunately I don't believe more then 1 percent of Darwinists accepts/uses the basic formulation of Natural Selection, since nowhere is it defined in a basic way, and several seemingly authoritative people on talk.origins denied the basic formulation had scientific merit.Why not change the definition of selection on the glossary of this site?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Your questions in post 42 are already largely answered elsewhere in this thread.As I mentioned before, Darwin's "Origin of Species" is also a popular press book, just like Dawkins' "Selfish Gene", so is Konrad Lorenz's "On aggression" a popular press book. You really have no point with saying "The Selfish Gene" is a popular pressbook, since popular pressbooks are the mainstay of Darwinist science. I've never seen any Darwinist reference Darwin and Wallace's science paper on Natural Selection actually. The introduction of this site also doesn't refer to Darwin's sciencepaper, but to the "Origin of Species".There aren't many clone population in Nature (some populations of asexually producing bacteria for instance), but there are many situations in Nature where variation is irrellevant, that is the point.If you think I accurately defined Natural Selection then why is my definition different from the definition in the glossary of this site? Why is variation required as a conditition for selection to apply in the glossary of this site?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The paper Darwin and Wallace jointly published in the journal of the Linneanian society (could be misspelling). That you don't even know of it's existence says much about the attitudes on peer-review in Darwinist science. The paper was also largely ignored at the time it was published. I think this is because the paper was substandard, and not as many Darwinists argue, because of unwillingness of creationists to accept it.I have seen reference to Dawkins selfish gene doctrine in a science paper, besides a large share of Darwinists have the opinion that his book "The Selfish Gene" is an "important" book. As before, I would be happy if Dawkins books were ignored within science as the books of an eccentric, but unfortunately they aren't. Dawkins also gives a technical definition of selfishness, and altruism in his book. It is not as some people would like to believe a metaphore, but it is supposed to be used as a technical term. But before he defines selfishness technically he already uses the word to say that "people are born selfish", and says things like people can get insight into their "greed" and "genorosity" through his and Darwin's theory. I don't think he has a technical definition of greed.Am I to suppose that when Dawkins warns that people are born selfish, and they should learn to overcome their inborn selfishness in becoming adults, that that is just technical usage of the term selfish? Then it would read something like people are born to try to get themselves to reproduce, and in becoming adults they should try to get others to reproduce at cost of not reproducing themselves. By the technical usage of selfish, Dawkins is a nut telling us we should try to help others to reproduce. By the more straightforward colloquial usage of selfishness, Dawkins mixes science with valuejudgement, so it should also be discarded.You are just pretending that the scientific process in Darwinism is just the same as in physics, or chemistry, much as a dialectical materialist Marxist ecnomotrist would, but unfortunately it's not.You also fail to answer questions about the validity of the formulation "differential reproductive success of variants". Would a physician or chemist also fail to answer such questions? Isn't it just unique to Darwinism, that the field is filled with highly politicized people, for who answering such questions presents political risk of defaming their science?"differential reproductive success of variants" is used in many science-papers. It is not a highly technical term, it has an intuitive part about "success", which notionally refers to things like struggle/competition/purpose.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Mendel wrote a piece of formalized biological science at about the same timeperiod as Darwin. So Darwin really has no excuse for solely writing his theory up in prosaic common style.Besides, Darwinists could have written his theory up in formalized style later, and not continue with the prosaic style. Then you would only have to reference me the formalized theory of Natural Selection for the questions I have about selection applying to survival or reproduction or both, or selection applying to endangered species or not etc. In stead of this simple reference, I run into countless discussions with Darwin interpreters who have some sort of "notion", what Natural Selection "is about".Origin was not ignored, but Darwin and Wallace's (substandard) science paper was/is ignored.I don't understand how you can at once say that the science in Origin is excellent and at the same time still endorse peer-reviewed formalized papers. Either formalized papers are excellent science, which makes "Origin" abysmal (and Mendel excellent), or common prose is excellent science, which makes formalized peer-review papers abysmal science. You clearly have never read anything Darwin wrote with the intention of getting some formal knowledge out of it, which is when the common prose of Darwin becomes very frustrating.Dawkins explicitely refers to reproduction as the "purpose" of organisms in "the Selfish Gene". It is not just me who notionally cojoins purpose to the word success in "differential reproductive success", but actually everybody, including you when you are not politically pressured.You are wrong that Dawkins just says that people are born with selfish genes, he says that people are born selfish and should learn to become altruist.I don't have the name handy of a science paper with reference to Dawkins "The Selfish Gene". I will look it up if you tell me this will significantly change your opinion.Most all in this post I have written before on this forum, so I don't think it's very meaningful to respond to you anymore, unless you have some comments about changing the formulation of selection in the glossary of this site, into the basic formulation of selection.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Actually, he uses the word survival in stead of like I said, the word reproduction. He uses the word reproduction elsewhere, as if survival and reproduction are somehow interchangeable words. Ever stood in front of a xerox copying machine and when you push the buttons all the machine does is "survive"? It's very annoying. Survival and reproduction are definitely not the same thing.Nothing found for Dawkins Work Books Selfpage"Before going any further, we need a definition. An entity, such as a baboon, is said to be altruistic if it behaves in such a way as to increase another such entity's welfare at the expense of its own. Selfish behavior has exactly the opposite effect.'Welfare' is defined as 'chances of survival', even if the effect on actual life and death prospects is so small as to seem negligible. ".Page not found - Christians in Science
(BBC christmas science lectures)
"We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA Flowers are for the same thing as everything else in the living kingdoms, for spreading 'copy - me' programmes about, written in DNA language.That is EXACTLY what we are for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self sustaining process. It is every living objects' sole reason for living...For as far as Dawkins makes selfishness into part of the definition of evolution or Natural Selection:Nothing found for Dawkins Work Books Selfpage"If you look at the way natural selection works, it seems to follow that anything that has evolved by natural selection should be selfish."regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu