Clear faults in Darwin's formulation of Natural Selection

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 organismregards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fundamental definition of Natural Selection as you set out becomes disputed when variation is said to not be required for Natural Selection to apply. John, Quetzal, some people on sci.bio.evolution, and previously you, have said this is so, that Natural Selection can also for instance apply to a clone population.Your assertive pronouncement that all evo's agree on the fundamentals of NS is simply wrong.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The faq is just distinguishing between heritable and non-heritable variation. In any case there are also several people on talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution insisting that Natural Selection requires variation.How you can at once define Natural Selection to require variation, and then say Natural Selection doesn't require variation, is beyond me. Science should be judgemental this way, it's one or the other. You have included extinction of a population in non-variational selection. You seem to be wrongly dismissing population extinction as having no significant scientific interest. If you would admit extinction has much scientific interest, it logically follows you should exclude variation as a requirement for Natural Selection.Once again, you have no point. You have not thought this through, or even tried to.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I have no problem with the definition of Natural Selection that doesn't require variation to apply.It's just that this is not the common definition as it is in the glossary, or much of anywhere else, and several selfrespecting Darwinists I talked to, argue that the definition without variation is wrong.Even you have defined Natural Selection requiring variation. Yes you say it can also apply without variation, but this is not how you have defined it in a few posts previous, where you said that every evo accepts the definition requiring variation. That is ridiculous, that you define it one way, but use it in another. I supposed you do this because you don't find selection without variation to provide meaningful knowledge. I was just guessing here, since you gave no reason at all why you do this.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Peter required variation in a post previous by talking about "advantage" which he previously defined as being a heritable difference=variation.If you define Natural Selection with variation as is common, then you would tend to ignore the action of environmental factors on an organism. There is no description in the literature of Natural Selection like: Light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (is selected in). Tend to ignore.Actual arguments that have been offered to me why Natural Selection should require variation:- variation is required to distinguish adaptive evolution from random evolution
- it is impossible to measure nonvariation selectionTo Peter: the references you gave require variation (at least the first one does, I just assumed the rest do also), as does the glossary definition require variation as I explained before.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

That can't be right. There are many both positive and negative factors which need not change for them to be called selective factors. That is the meaningful knowledge arrived at here, to view an organism's relation to the environment in regards to the event of it's reproduction.That is also the meaningful knowledge in your example of adaptive evolution. To know that the one plant is selected for at a certain lightlevel, and the other at another lightlevel, or that if they are together that one is a negative selective factor to the other by outcompeting it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As before all the references you gave require variation for natural selection to apply.http://www.counterbalance.org/biogloss/natsel-body.html", giving those with *greater "fitness"* "http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoDefinition.html#natural"Here are a list of the conditions Darwin thought were required for evolution by natural selection: ......2. Organisms *vary* in many ways,..."FishBase Glossary"Natural selection is the differential contribution of offspring to the next generation by *various* genetic types.."regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Indeed they are not the same, one is wrong the other right. When you say NS is about "which" organism reproduces, then you have put the focus of selection on competition or comparison. "Which" implies one or the other. Selection is between reproduction and no reproduction of the one, or survival and no survival of the one, as you have it, not reproduction of one or the other.I think the setup to include variation this way is also odd. First assume the existence of variation, first assume the existence of a primitive photosynthesis trait, then have it evolve, meaning the traitfrequencies in the population changes. That's nonsense isn't it? The photosynthesis trait evolved, meaning a mutation occured that made it, and then it spread, it reproduced, it was selected for. That's the way it makes sense.I think there is more to it then just convenience to describe evolution that variation is included in the definition. But what that is, I don't really know.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu