Quetzal, John, Peter and other non-variationist Darwinists

Are hereby invited to participate in the "Variation or no variation" thread on sci.bio.evolution which can be found at Sign in - Google Accounts .They all require variation in the definition of selection there, and you all said you don't. Because I have no credibility being an anti-Darwinist, I thought they might be more responsive if any of you would argue with them. I think there are many "variationists" on this forum also, but they keep quiet, so there never actually is a discussion between those that do and those that don't believe variation is required for selection to apply.(edited to addrokimoto@mail.uark.edu (Ron Okimoto) on sci.bio.evolution
"All the clonal organisms would be equivalent and there would be no net evolutionary change. All would respond in the same way to the environment within a set range of responses. Which response would have nothing to do with the genetics because they would be identical. There would be no net change and no selection. Which animals survived would not depend on anything that would get passed on to the next generation."As far as I can tell Ron is saying here that if genes are identical then they don't contribute to survival/reproduction. Any non-variationist want to engage that argument on sci.bio.evolution?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 03-08-2003]

Sorry but this is science, and science is judgemental. It is not possible to say that variation is really not required for selection but we still include it in the definition anyhow, because well, we like to suit the theory for evolution. Oh and then accuse of me of misrepresenting when I am just enforcing systemacy of knowledge, that is rich.You also fail to mention my arguments why and how selection without variation provides meaningful knowledge. Since I explained this about a dozen times how this is meaningful, it is strange that you make no mention of it, and simply proceed to focus the theory on evolution again. What I mean to say is that you and others have been stubborn to a fault in not recognizing my argument, as you are here. I know what your argument is, and it isn't much.I can't see how a change in the definition of a fundamental theory would be insignificant, that is a very weird idea you have there about fundamental theories being so maleable. You say variation is not required then there is no variation in the baisc definition of Natural Selection, and you are non-variationist Darwinists, end of discussion. There is no other possible conclusion by rules of science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It is different because this guy explicitely requires variation for selection to apply. He does use the word selection without variation, but then later he explicitely and repeatedly denies that selection can happen without variation, unlike you and others who affirm the use without variation.The "argument" is then basically well without variation there is no evolution, and we want to use selection for evolution, not for stasis, so therefore variation has to be included. It is simple prejudice about what he wants to describe.He also mentions that without differential variation which organism would reproduce is random, but then this argument is shown faulty because it's also possible that all organisms reproduce, or all not reproduce, so selection without variation can be completely non-random.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu