|
Author
|
Topic: Clear faults in Darwin's formulation of Natural Selection
|
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5608 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: 05-19-2002
|
|
Message 1 of 42 (25337)
12-03-2002 8:16 AM
|
|
|
Many people still reference Darwin's original formulation of Natural Selection, not realising that it's a work of prosa and contains many scientific errors. "Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should occur in the course of many successive generations? If such do occur, can we doubt, (remembering that many more indiviuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and procreating their kind?" (C. Darwin, Origin of Species) 1: it is not generally true that many more individuals are born then can possibly survive. All individuals die, not a share of them, but all individuals die. It's also not generally true that many more individuals are born then can reproduce, this is only sometimes true. 2: Just like it is wrong to say that atoms battle to get freeflying electrons, it is wrong to say that living beings battle to stay alive. There is no such battle among plants, or animals, but rather there is a fluctuating chance that they stay alive for some limited timeframe. (as before, in the long run the chance of survival is zero) 3: to have an advantage over others ... would have the best chance of surviving and procreating, is simply a tautology. ---- The modern formulation of Natural Selection is: differential reproductive success of variants. This has the "error" of being a meaningless comparison because there is no longer the requirement for competition/replacement to take place for the formulation to apply. There doesn't have to be a physical relationship between the variants for the formulation to apply. The safe definition of Natural Selection is: Natural Selection = for an organism to either reproduce or fail to reproduce (to be selected in, or to be selected out) fitness = chance of reproduction of an organism regards, Mohammad Nor Syamsu
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 2 by Peter, posted 02-13-2003 9:05 AM | | Syamsu has replied | | | Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 02-13-2003 10:14 AM | | Syamsu has replied |
|
Peter
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: 02-05-2002
|
|
|
Message 2 of 42 (32115)
02-13-2003 9:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
12-03-2002 8:16 AM
|
|
I have a strong feeling of deja vu here but ... quote:
Many people still reference Darwin's original formulation of Natural Selection, not realising that it's a
work of prosa and contains many scientific errors. "Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of
life, should occur in the course of many successive generations? If such do occur, can we doubt,
(remembering that many more indiviuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having
any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and
procreating their kind?" (C. Darwin, Origin of Species) 1: it is not generally true that many more individuals are born then can possibly survive. All individuals
die, not a share of them, but all individuals die. It's also not generally true that many more individuals
are born then can reproduce, this is only sometimes true.
It depends on the scope and meaning of 'survival'. As you pointed out the style of Darwin's day was somewhat prosaic, and must be interpreted as 'lay' usage of language. One does not tend to refer to dying of old age as a failure to survive. Survival tends to refer to living past some unanticipated life-threatening event. In that, common usage, Darwin was completely correct. Many more offspring are produced than can possibly survive. Look at turtles, salmon, wild rabbits, and so on. Infant mortality rates in the wild are pretty high. Adult mortality rates are high enough! quote:
2: Just like it is wrong to say that atoms battle to get freeflying electrons, it is wrong to say that
living beings battle to stay alive. There is no such battle among plants, or animals, but rather there is
a fluctuating chance that they stay alive for some limited timeframe. (as before, in the long run the
chance of survival is zero)
The 'battle for existence', apart from being metaphorical, does not refer to battling one another to survive. It means that living a long and healthy life is not something that can be achieved in the wild without some considerable effort. quote:
3: to have an advantage over others ... would have the best chance of surviving and procreating, is simply a tautology.
Tautology is a kind of literary redundancy, like saying 'baby puppy'. The above is a cause and effect relationship of sorts. IF A has an advantage over B THEN A has a higher survival chance IF G has a higher survival chance THEN G is more likely to procreate quote:
The modern formulation of Natural Selection is: differential reproductive success of variants. This has the "error" of being a meaningless comparison because there is no longer the requirement for
competition/replacement to take place for the formulation to apply. There doesn't have to be a
physical relationship between the variants for the formulation to apply.
I'll try this again (although several months of posting have resulted in you starting from scratch again!!) 1. Animals are born 2. Some animals die before reproducing 3. Some survivors procreate 4. Back to 1. 2. is natural selection. 3. encompasses sexual selection. both 2&3 have some chance elements that get thrown into the mix. quote:
The safe definition of Natural Selection is: Natural Selection = for an organism to either reproduce or fail to reproduce (to be selected in, or to be selected out)
No. quote:
fitness = chance of reproduction of an organism
No. {Added by edit} The above NS sequence is not entirely accurate as there can be a loop around 2-3. That is some animals may breed in one or two seasons, but be killed/die after that, while others may continue breeding into three or more seasons --> thus some parents leave more offspring than others over their lifespan (natural or cut-short). [This message has been edited by Peter, 02-13-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 12-03-2002 8:16 AM | | Syamsu has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 5 by Syamsu, posted 02-13-2003 11:38 AM | | Peter has replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 753 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 3 of 42 (32122)
02-13-2003 10:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
12-03-2002 8:16 AM
|
|
quote:
it is not generally true that many more individuals are born then can possibly survive.
I think you're mistaken here: many of the creatures in the sea, especially invertebrates, scatter thousands to millions of fertilized eggs, and all but two of these, on the average, end up as food for other sealife before they reproduce. And opossums - litters are ten to twenty, and only a pair or so make it to breeding age. Otherwise, we'd have possums up to our eyeballs. Humans were the same way, too, until agriculture and particularly until modern medicine and sanitation.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 12-03-2002 8:16 AM | | Syamsu has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 4 by Syamsu, posted 02-13-2003 11:11 AM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Syamsu
Suspended Member (Idle past 5608 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: 05-19-2002
|
|
|
Message 4 of 42 (32125)
02-13-2003 11:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by Coragyps
02-13-2003 10:14 AM
|
|
But your logic is faulty. Even if each possum had one offspring in stead of ten, then we would eventually still have possums up to our eyeballs. The reason we are not up to our eyeballs in possums is because all possums die. regards, Mohammad Nor Syamsu
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 02-13-2003 10:14 AM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Syamsu
Suspended Member (Idle past 5608 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: 05-19-2002
|
|
|
Message 5 of 42 (32129)
02-13-2003 11:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 2 by Peter
02-13-2003 9:05 AM
|
|
Many more offspring are produced than can possibly live past some unanticipated life-threatening event, is not correct by any means. I didn't intend to say organisms battle each other. Are you saying that plants make an effort to reproduce? If there is any effort to a plants reproduction it's on the part of the environment, because effort can only be where randomness is. It can also be in the nervous system of some animal, but maybe that randomnes should be noted as environment to the organism, in stead of as phenotype. I think baby puppy is a pleonasm not a tautology. Tautology is saying the same thing twice. Pleonasm is like red blood, where blood is already defined as being red. Having an advantage is the same as having a higher chance of reproduction, and therefore a tautology. There is no cause (advantage) which leads to an effect (higher chance of reproduction), there is just a varying chance of reproduction. In many months you have not learned to make your theory general. Your theory does not apply to plants, because plants are not animals. Your biased definition of Natural Selection towards animals leads you to talk about "effort" to reproduce. Now you have double layered selection. First only selection on survival before reproduction (2), and then selection after survival before reproduction, but still before reproduction(3). It's ridiculous. It's strange that you now deny my definition of Natural Selection where before you have accepted this definition. regards, Mohammad Nor Syamsu
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2 by Peter, posted 02-13-2003 9:05 AM | | Peter has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 6 by Peter, posted 02-19-2003 7:33 AM | | Syamsu has replied |
|
Peter
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: 02-05-2002
|
|
|
Message 6 of 42 (32637)
02-19-2003 7:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by Syamsu
02-13-2003 11:38 AM
|
|
quote:
Many more offspring are produced than can possibly live past some unanticipated life-threatening event, is not correct by any means.
So you disagree with the observations of naturalists the world over for many years? quote:
I didn't intend to say organisms battle each other.
Nonetheless, that's what the implication appeared to be. You, on the one hand, say that Darwin's writing is prosaic, and them on the other take each phrase as a formal description. The 'battle for existence' is a metaphor. quote:
Are you saying that plants make an effort to reproduce?
Yes. They must grow, spread out roots to gain nutrients from the environment in order to develop their seed-bearing mechanism of choice (flower, spore, what have you), they must bend their leaf surfaces toward the available light. There is a quite significant effort involved in a plant's struggle for survival. quote:
If there is any effort to a plants reproduction it's on the part of the environment, because effort can only be where randomness is.
The last part lost me ... but how exactly can the environment extert an effort? quote:
It can also be in the nervous system of some animal, but maybe that randomnes should be noted as environment to the organism, in stead of as phenotype.
Why can effort only be where randomness is? Even if everything were predictable in advance, one would still have to expend energy to survive. quote:
Tautology is saying the same thing twice.
Having an advantage is the same as having a higher chance of reproduction, and therefore a tautology.
Only if you define 'advantage' as meaning 'higher chance of reproductive success'. The usual formulation does not define advantage in that way. The usual formulation of NS says that those individuals with an advantage will have a higher chance of reproduction (see below for more). Advantage leads to greater reproductive success. quote:
There is no cause(advantage) which leads to an effect (higher chance of reproduction), there is just a varying chance of reproduction.
Think about what you just stated above. Organisms have a varying chance of reproduction. This means that some organisms can have a higher chance of reproduction that others. A factors which will affect this include any trait which gives one organism a survival or breeding advantage over another organims (or group of organisms). quote:
In many months you have not learned to make your theory general. Your theory does not apply to plants, because plants are not animals. Your biased definition of Natural Selection towards animals
leads you to talk about "effort" to reproduce.
NS, as I have described it, applies to any organism (indeed to anything that self-replicates and interacts with an environment). If a plant has a seed with a better flight characteristic, and seeds stand a better chance of survival if they fall further from the parent, then the plant has an advantage. quote:
Now you have double layered selection. First only selection on survival before reproduction (2), and then selection after survival before reproduction, but still before reproduction(3). It's ridiculous.
1. Whether or not a new-born/sprouted/etc. organism has any chance of reproduction depends upon on it surviving to breeding age/maturity. 2. The number of offspring that any breeding-age organism leaves will increase with each breeding season through which it survives. If an 'advantaged' individual bears 3/5 surviving young for 5 seasons while a 'dis-advantaged' individual bears 2/5 surviving young for 3 seasons there will be a shift in the overall population characteristic toward the advantaged trait(s). quote:
It's strange that you now deny my definition of Natural Selection where before you have accepted this definition.
If the 'definition' of NS you supplied in the previous post is 'your' definition then I have never agreed with this. I find it somewhat alarming that, after thinking we were moving toward some common ground, you seem to have discarded all of the previous line of discussion and started back with 'NS don't work'!!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by Syamsu, posted 02-13-2003 11:38 AM | | Syamsu has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 7 by Syamsu, posted 02-19-2003 10:03 AM | | Peter has replied |
|
Syamsu
Suspended Member (Idle past 5608 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: 05-19-2002
|
|
|
Message 7 of 42 (32656)
02-19-2003 10:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Peter
02-19-2003 7:33 AM
|
|
Your talk about Natural Selection is not to any significant degree systemized, it is just talk. Most probably you have forgot again about clone populations of bacteria, and other instances where variation is irrellevant. If you think effort and seasons should be part of the definition of Natural Selection then why don't you criticize the definition in the glossary of this site on this point? If you want to come to a correct definition of Natural Selection, to the exclusion of other definitions then to be regarded incorrect, then go ahead and criticize the definition of the glossary in the "Minimum requirements... " thread. Somehow I think all your criticism will evaporate when faced with the definition of a somewhat authority like the glossary definition. regards, Mohammad Nor Syamsu
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Peter, posted 02-19-2003 7:33 AM | | Peter has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 8 by Peter, posted 02-19-2003 10:35 AM | | Syamsu has replied |
|
Peter
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: 02-05-2002
|
|
|
Message 8 of 42 (32660)
02-19-2003 10:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by Syamsu
02-19-2003 10:03 AM
|
|
You should appreciate the difference between a 'defintion' and an 'illustration' or 'description'. Your original post here stated that Darwin's formulation of natural selection was in error. The three points you raised have been shown not to be errors. 1. 'Many more offspring than can possibly survive.' This is an observation of the natural world, not really open to dispute. Even with your board 'survival' concept this statement is true since none of the offspring will 'survive' in the sense that you use it. It the intended, and commonly understood usage of, 'survival' this statement is borne out by many examples; turtles, frogs, rabbits, ... pick an animal which still roams the wild. 2. 'Battle for existence' This, as you yourself pointed out, is prosaic. A metaphor for the effort required to subsist in the wild. Do you deny that all creatures have to work with (and in some cases against) their environment to survive? Animals have to regulate their temperatures, and forage for food and water. Plants have to compete for water and other nutrients from the soil, and for sunlight from the skies, and (for flowering plants) to attract a sufficient number of pollinators. It is not easy in the wild habitats across the world. 3. 'Advantage' and 'greater chance of procreation' Are not the same thing. One has an effect on the other. Just because an individual is the biggest and the strongest deson't mean it WILL procreate more, only that it is more likely to on the basis of it's survival advantages. In terms of the glossary defintion here, there is no problem as far as I can see with the way I describe NS, and the way the glossary defines it. Please point out where the views diverge. What is your actual objection to NS anyway? I have yet to understand this. If there is a drought, the individuals who can survive the drought are the ones who get to procreate ... if they survived due to a heritable feature, then the future population will be better adapted to drought survival. It's not just about reproduction, which you even suggest in your objection to point 2 in your original post.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by Syamsu, posted 02-19-2003 10:03 AM | | Syamsu has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 9 by Syamsu, posted 02-19-2003 11:43 AM | | Peter has replied |
|
Syamsu
Suspended Member (Idle past 5608 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: 05-19-2002
|
|
|
Message 9 of 42 (32665)
02-19-2003 11:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by Peter
02-19-2003 10:35 AM
|
|
Sure it is open to dispute since it is simply wrong. All individuals die, not some but all, as is observed by everybody. Even in your narrow definition of survival it is wrong, because with frogs, rabbits etc. it just depends on many environmental factors whether all offspring will reproduce or not, as is also observed by everybody. It is only sometimes true that many more individuals are born then can reproduce. I have to translate to the word survival into reproduction here, since the word survival would be simply wrong. Haeckel was lambasted by biologists for translating struggle into the German word "Kampf", which translates back to battle, as part of his would be redifining of Natural Selection into something "unrecognizable" from the original Darwinism. But as you can see the word battle is in the central definition of Darwin's "Origin of Species". You have not shown my criticism to be in error, you have just argued for using the word battle where no other science would have. Sure I can also say planets battle to go around the sun, they have to steer their way through gravitational forcefields of other planets etc. But that would be wrong, anthropomorphic, as explained before. It is very easy in the wild, since largely it all goes on without any effort or battle, it largely is just a chain of chemical reactions. Where it becomes hard, is where nervous systems come in, which doesn't happen that much in the wild. The word "Strongest" you use, is said to be another "key redefinition" Haeckel stands accused of deviously putting into the definition of Natural Selection. You are saying you can have selection where the less fit reproduce more offspring then those with an advantage, as per chance. This is somewhat in line with what I argued in the "minimum requirements..." thread about redefining artificial selection to mean selection due to chance or randomness, and Natural Selection to be understood to be due to non-random forces. But when you look at the environment I guess you will see a spread of chances, from events that are likely to occur, to very unlikely to occur, and all in between. So I guess this redefinition would only be notional, since you can't absolutely categorize each sort of event to belong to the one or the other. In any case what Darwin said is still wrong, because if an organism has a feauture which increases it's chance of reproduction (advantage), it does not neccessarily mean that it will have a higher chance of reproduction then others. Darwin asks if we can doubt that an advantaged organism will have a higher chance of reproduction. The answer is we should doubt it has a higher chance of reproduction, because it is based around chance and not neccesity. My main problem with Natural Selection is that the basic formulation that is promulgated includes variation. To the best of my recollection you agreed that Natural Selection applies without variation. Why you then now proceed to include variation again, is something only you know. You can have survival selection, but in the system of knowledge it would basicly be a separate theory from reproduction selection. regards, Mohammad Nor Syamsu
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Peter, posted 02-19-2003 10:35 AM | | Peter has replied |
|
wehappyfew
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 10 of 42 (32709)
02-19-2003 10:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by Syamsu
02-19-2003 11:43 AM
|
|
Syamsu writes: You can have survival selection...
Your language is faulty, as well... According to your definition of "survival", ALL organisms fail to survive, therefore there is no "survival selection", except in the sense that all organisms are "selected out".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by Syamsu, posted 02-19-2003 11:43 AM | | Syamsu has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 11 by Syamsu, posted 02-19-2003 10:50 PM | | wehappyfew has not replied |
|
Syamsu
Suspended Member (Idle past 5608 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: 05-19-2002
|
It just means that survival selection stops when the organism dies, as all organisms do, but then there is still survival selection going on for when it is alive. In the relatively near future, all organisms will be selected out yes, according to survival selection. regards, Mohammad Nor Syamsu
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by wehappyfew, posted 02-19-2003 10:10 PM | | wehappyfew has not replied |
|
Peter
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: 02-05-2002
|
|
|
Message 12 of 42 (32779)
02-20-2003 9:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by Syamsu
02-19-2003 11:43 AM
|
|
I think you have missed the point entirely. Survival means survival of unexpected events. Suppose a creature has an unimpeded lifespan of 25 years. Within that 25 years there are many instances when, due to some environmental factor, the organism could die. Due to some heritable trait, 20% of the population are more liekly to reach the maximal, 25 year age than others. Also, 5% are, due to some heritable trait, only likely to reach an age of 6 years. The first group will leave more offspring than the latter group. The heritable trait frequency in the population will change. Survival does not mean immortal. Survival means the ability to survive adversity.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by Syamsu, posted 02-19-2003 11:43 AM | | Syamsu has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 13 by Syamsu, posted 02-20-2003 9:19 PM | | Peter has replied |
|
Syamsu
Suspended Member (Idle past 5608 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: 05-19-2002
|
|
|
Message 13 of 42 (32782)
02-20-2003 9:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by Peter
02-20-2003 9:01 PM
|
|
No your're wrong again. You have to give me more credit then that. I mean, of course I may still be wrong about it all, but I have thought this through. You however are still stuck with describing "animals" when you should be describing organisms. Not to rub in your mistake, but it's part of a pattern in your writing. You obviously haven't seriously tried to arrive at a general application of Natural Selection yet, which is why you meander around here and there, and nowhere about effort and seasons and whatnot. Survival does not mean survival of unexpected events. Breathing for instance is part of surviving and breathing is not reasonably an unexpected event. You are just making this up as you go along. regards, Mohammad Nor Syamsu
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by Peter, posted 02-20-2003 9:01 PM | | Peter has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 14 by Peter, posted 02-21-2003 12:02 PM | | Syamsu has replied |
|
Peter
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: 02-05-2002
|
|
|
Message 14 of 42 (32818)
02-21-2003 12:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by Syamsu
02-20-2003 9:19 PM
|
|
1. The example I suggested in my previous post was as general as I could make it. The organism in question could just as easily be a petunia bush as a fruit bat. 2. Survival in Darwin's sense doesn't mean what you are suggesting. All organisms have a natural maximum lifespan (they all die eventually), but not all individual organisms reach that maximal age. When one dies of old age, you do not hear (in English anyhow) people say 'Well they survived a long time.' they say 'He/she's had a good innings!' or 'They lived a long life.' 'Survive' does not mean 'live'. I can survive a fire or an earthquake or a drought (plants are susceptible to those too you know that's why I chose it), but I don't 'survive' my life, I live it. Your problem seems to be the meaning that you ascribe to the word 'survival' ... your meaning is not the one commonly held amongst english speaking natives ... one of whom was Charles Darwin. All of that is off-the-topic here though. You stated 3 'faults', I have explained why they are not faults. [This message has been edited by Peter, 02-21-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by Syamsu, posted 02-20-2003 9:19 PM | | Syamsu has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 15 by Syamsu, posted 02-22-2003 6:40 AM | | Peter has replied |
|
Syamsu
Suspended Member (Idle past 5608 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: 05-19-2002
|
|
|
Message 15 of 42 (32859)
02-22-2003 6:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by Peter
02-21-2003 12:02 PM
|
|
Ah so now you can say you have shown my criticisms of Darwin's definition to be faulty, and I shouldn't refer to them anymore? You have done no such thing. On sci.bio.evolution I found a few more selfrespecting evolutionists with different opinions on whether or not variation is required for Natural Selection to apply. It's just not credible that Natural Selection is clearly undertandable "hard" science. And this is caused by Darwin writing prosa, and Darwinists then continuing that tradition throughout. Of course I should doubt that the Darwinists themselves consider it a significant problem that Natural Selection is defined fundamentally different by different Darwinists. regards, Mohammad Nor Syamsu
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by Peter, posted 02-21-2003 12:02 PM | | Peter has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 16 by Peter, posted 02-23-2003 10:10 AM | | Syamsu has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2