Clear faults in Darwin's formulation of Natural Selection

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

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

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

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

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