|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Clear faults in Darwin's formulation of Natural Selection | |||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Guilty as charged!! My wording was just as loose as those
definitions that you complain about. What I mean by NS (carefully worded this time)::Natural Selection concerns the environmental factors that affects the number of offspring produced by an individual. For NS the focus is not on competition, but on survival toreproduce. quote: And the above, in a nut-shell, is exactly how evolutionists viewit. If the photosynthesis trait arrived via a mutation, that meansthat the mutation introduced a new variant into the population. That variant could produce energy from sunlight, H2O and CO2, while other individuals could not. This gave it an advantage, and a greater chance of prolonged survival. Thus it left more offspring with the heritable ps trait than those that coud not do ps. Each of these generation-2 ps-plants also out-bred their non-ps peers, and so on. That is natural selection. Evolution requires variation. In your example, the mutationintroduced a variation. Not all individuals within the population suddenly develop the same mutation (unless you are Peter Borger). Natural selection is about the relationship between traits andsurvival (to reproduce).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Ah, you just don't get it. The advantage over, and outbreeding talk is meaningless. You don't actually know what the ancestor to the first plant was and maybe the ancestral form is still around today. If that were true which it might, then your talk about having an advantage, or outbreeding is misleading, deceptive. Your prejudice may be right many times, but science doesn't work that way.
Evolution as defined by Darwinists is a change in populationfrequency of variants. Darwinists do not define evolution in the way I did, that is simply untrue. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
We have not been talking about evolution, we
have been talking about natural selection. No 'ancestral forms' are still around today. All life on earth (currently) has evolved over thelast 2-3 billion years (according to contemporary science). Two (or more) current organisms may have a common ancestor, but no living organism is ancestor to any other living organism (excepting its own offspring).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
When you talk about advantage related to a variation (the photsynthesis trait), then you're talking about a form, differentiated with the ancestral form, or form of others in the population. You said that the photosynthetic form is more succesful then it's ancestor. What if the first photosynthetic organism is evolved from a bacteria that is still around today in the same form as it was then? Then all your talk about having an "advantage over" is misleading. You could just as well turn it around and argue about the advantage the ancestral bacteria have over their photosynthetic offspring.
Your mistake derives from Darwin's formulation. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
It is highly unlikely that any creature exists today that
is completely unchanged from it's ancestors 2 billion years ago. When cells divide they suffer copy errors. Natural selection does not preclude two variants survivingwithin a population, or of the population splitting such that sub-population-A stays put and follows one evolutionary path, while sub-population-B moves on and follows another. The variation may even make the variants able to exploit different aspects of the same environment (I would suppose this to be possible). If you mis-understand natural selection as a concept, and it'sconsequences for evolution that does not mean that the concepts are wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
It is wrong to say the one form has an advantage over the other form, as you do, when both the one and the other continue to reproduce generation after generation.
Highly unlikely is not impossible, and I believe there are acknowledged to be organisms that don't evolve for this timeperiod. Besides a photosynthetic trait could evolve today, then there is no long time period. Your concepts derived from Darwin are clearly wrong. You need to think about why you want to look at reproduction of a form or forms, and how you fit this way of looking at organisms with looking at them in terms of reproduction in general. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Just because one variant is at an advantage doesn't
mean that the other variant will be wiped out. It may become less common, but not necessarily disappear entirely. Tell those who object to abiogenesis that highly unlikelydoes not mean impossible, please. Yes, I cannot say for certain, but logic says that since copy errorshappen, then over billions of years it would not be likely that any species would retain exactly the same genotype. There are some creatures which are phenotypically unchanged inany major, species defining feature ... but I don't think anyone is saying that they are identicle to their ancestors in the way that you seem to mean. A PS trait could evolve today, and maybe it did somewhere in theuniverse ... who knows, and what point were you making? You keep falling in back on this 'Darwin is wrong' thing, withoutbeing very clear as to why. Severla people here have described the most common understandingof natural selection to you. Whether you quible over how formal the definition is or not, NS happens and has been observed to happen. Organisms can only reproduce if they are alive. In a population there IS variation. Some variants will be able to stay alive longer than others. Those that stay alive longest will have the most opportunity forreproduction. Those that leave the most offspring will have the most impacton the genetic make-up (gene pool) of the future population. Where is the problem in that reasoning?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Well it's hopeless if you don't care for systemacy of knowledge, as any scientist has to. But as in another thread, I can justifiably call your and Darwin's formulation of Natural Selection wrong, pseudoscience, by that standard of systemacy. If variation is not required for selection, as you acknowledge, then it's out of the basic definition, and you are misrepresenting the workings of Natural Selection for including it.
I would only talk about having an advantage over another if there was a competitive situation, where the one variant influenced the reproductive success of another variant, otherwise to put it that way results in deception. Or otherwise I would talk about advantage as in a relation to the environment that contributes to reproducion, without mentioning any variant at all. Darwin in his muddled thinking besides requiring variation also required competition in his formulation of Natural Selection applied to people, where he talked about one race or species of man encroaching on one another as the basic working of Natural Selection. So then you have a very very different looking formulation where it is required that for Natuaral Selection you talk about one variant being better then the other, and the superior encroaching on / killing the inferior. Very very different, and all because Darwinists quite arrogantly refuse to abide by standards of systemacy of knowledge that are simply accepted without question in other sciences. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
You don't have to be in competition to have an
advantage over another individual. Advantage does not mean that one impacts the potential ofreproductive success of the other. In fact, that's largely why there is an emphasis on survival. You don't seem to be understanding the way NS operatesno matter how I (and others) try to explain it. It's not about competition (although that can feature as an environmental pressure). Darwin does(did?) NOT require variation for natural selection,but for evolution!! Please re-read the section that YOU quoted to see this! Niether did he require competition ... and as discussed beforehis comment on the races of man encroaching on one another was a dispassionate view of the way of the world, not a suggestion that different races of man were in direct competition and that one was better than the other. Darwin's approach, if it lacks systemacy, was not due to arrogance,but due to that being the way science was conducted in his day. I don't find there to be a problem with the formal defintionof natural selection, but I agree that many popular press descriptions do not clearly de-couple NS from evolution. That is understandable since NS is almost exclusively discussedas a mechanism for driving evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
The next sentence after the quote which includes variation reads something like, "this mechanism I have opted to call Natural Selection". It is not Natural Selection including variation so it is suited for evolution, but simply basic Natural Selection. You have no argument.
As mentioned several times before: It is simply untrue that works from the same timeperiod, such as that of Mendel, were not formalized, besides you insist on a wrong version that includes variation here and now. It is not dispassionate to note when it is allowed for superior people to kill inferior, what the highest state of morality is, to say that you shouldn't marry inferior etc. What is it then but enormous arrogance to talk with scientific certitude about all these things? It's only lawyers for Darwin who think that is dispassionate, but in any other science those things would not be allowed to pass. It's not understandable at all that you include variation, but not require variation. That is simply wrong. Again, you had better come up with a good reason to require variation in Natural Selection. Personal interest in evolution doesn't count. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The discussion seems to be stuck.
--------------------EvC Forum Administrator |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024