Destroying Darwinism

Natural selection isn't a theory. It's a mechanism generalized from the phenomenon that there's a statistical difference in which organisms survive to reproduce correlated with the "usefulness" of certain traits.Natrual selection doesn't lead to people cosidering one form or race as "better than another", except in a misunderstanding of the mechanism. In terms of natural selection the poverty-line mother with 5 kids is "better" than the rich couple with no kids.The bible has been used to justify racism as well; should we get rid of it, too?

Natural selection isn't a theory!Do you know what I mean when I say this? I'm honestly asking you. I bring it up because you agreed in your reply to me that it wasn't a theory, but here you are calling it a theory again.

Because it's just a name given to an apparent trend in populations for individuals with inheritable, advantagoeus traits to survive long enough to produce statistically more offspring than others. There's no invisible selection force at work - it's just a name given to a trend.A theory is a model. Natural selection is a trend.Also, no biologists I've ever talked to or read refer to "the theory of natural selection".So, why did you arrive at the conclusion that you could refer to natural selection as a theory? Is it because you don't really understand what a theory has to do?

You mean he saw it twice?

Not to nitpick, but this isn't true. The Eiffel Tower has the wind shadow of something equivalent to a two-story house, due to it's lacy structure. Wind just blows right through.The Eiffel Tower does bend, though - due to the differential expansion of the metal through heat. By noon on a sunny day it's about 10 centimeters or so off-center. (by contrast the wind only pushes it about 2 cm.)Just thought I'd chime in with useless knowledge.

Lucky for us that you haven't been successful in that regard.I honestly don't understand your point. You seem to agree that variation occurs, and you seem to agree that natural selection occurs. But yet you don't think they're related?

No, but then, they don't compete for the same resources, do they? One competes for tourist Euros in Paris while the other competes for tourist Euros (is Italy on the Euro, now?) in Pisa, Italy. Different environments. And buildings don't reproduce. Seriously? That's your argument? That's like saying that the racers in a race aren't really competing against each other - they're competing against a clock. It's true, but it's a meaningless distinction. The variants may not interact with each other, but they both compete against the environment for survival and reproductive opportunity. It's the same as saying that the racers are competing, even though they don't interact. It's just semantics, as I suspected.Interesting note - sometimes selection can operate on inanimate objects. A study of teddy bears in the years after their original introduction by toy stores suggests that the market of toy buyers acted like a selection pressure - rewarding those teddy bear makers who designed their bears with baby-like features - large head, eyes, small mouth, stubby arms - as opposed to those who crafted more realistic bears.Now, of course the bears couldn't interact with each other - they were just dolls, after all. But it's fair to say that they were in competition with each other for money. Those bears that looked the most like babies were wildly successful. As a result, all modern teddy bears bear those features - they're the "decendants", if you will, of those successful bears.

It's still just semantics, and you haven't answered my question: By your logic, do marathon runners compete with each other, or with clocks?

Right, but Syamsu's definition of competition includes interaction. Strictly speaking, runners aren't interacting - they're not tripping each other, or throwing bombs or banana peels (ala Super Mario Kart) at each other. Ergo, by Syamsu's definition of competition, runners don't compete with each other.Now, obviously this seems ridiculous. Runners compete with each other even though they aren't directly interacting. Similarly, organisms in the same environment compete with each other, even if they're not interacting with each other. Competition to escape predation (for instance) is as valid a competition as running sprints. I'm just trying to point out the absurdity of Syamsu's arguments.I understand where he(?)'s coming from; if one was genuinely opposed to racism then the idea that one vairant is "better" than another could be anathema. We're trying to point out that's not how natural selection is viewed except by the simplest of minds. Scientifically, the low-income family with 10 kids is "better" (more fit) than the rich couple with no kids at all (regardless of race). Eugenecists generally ignored that; they considered the higher birthrates of the so-called "lesser races" (their term; pardon the usage) as "evidence" of their "inferiority". Perhaps, Syamsu, you can understand how that's a misstatement of natural selection?True natural selection says nothing about race or who is better than who. It refers only to the differential rates of reproductive success. I don't find anything in the least racist about that.

Well, true. I guess I was referring more to races like sprinting, where runners run in their own lanes and stuff. But I'm certainly no authority on running. Nonetheless I think my analogy, in it's simplest form, is a valid analogy to Syamsu's position.We may be arguing the same thing - there's no situation where individuals interact with the same environment where they don't interact with each other, too.

I'm don't believe this to be true. Firstly, when we talk about "variants" are we talking about individuals with new traits, or the new genes themselves? I'm inclined to view natural selection at the genetic basis.Secondly, the "prize" is simple survival. Not the extinction of competition. It is sufficient for natural selection that a specific trait survives. It doesn't have to monopolize. So natural selection does apply continuously.It's like, if we're being chased by a predator, I don't have to be the only one who survives to "win". I just have to not be the one individual that gets eaten. I don't have to outrun the bear, I only have to outrun you. I don't understand what qualification you have to determine what is "standard in biology" and what is not.I've always understood natural selection to be not a law, or a theory, but simply a statement of an apparent trend - individuals who possess advantageous traits tend to produce more offspring than those that do not. I don't see anything inherently racist about that. So, you recognize then that scientific racism is actually pseudoscience, and not an inherent failing of the ToE. So what's the problem? You still haven't addressed why the Bible or the Koran are any better, as they have constantly been used to defend all kinds of pernicious deeds for centuries.

Actually, I have no clue what you're arguing. It's pretty clear that your arguments aren't well thought out; otherwise you wouldn't be resorting to name-calling, etc.Get back to us when you have a point. Until then I don't see a reason to address your arguments, as they appear to basically be straw men and semantics games.

I defined natural selection (perhaps not in this thread; I don't recall) to refer to "differential reproductive success biased towards those individuals with heritable, advantageous (relative to their environment) traits."There's nothing confused about my definition, and I believe it to be in agreement with standard biological concepts.Anyway, it's not clear that your list represents mutually exclusive elements. Why couldn't natural selection result in all of those outcomes in different situations? It really seems to me like you're the one confused about what natural selection refers to.

If it's a pressure that's simply reducing the population and not promoting the increase of beneficial traits, it's not selection, now is it?Just like it's not selection when I burn everything in the store.

Well, it depends on what is killing the white moths. If they're dying because the trees are darker as a result of industrial pollution, but the dark moths are prospering, then that's a trait-related selection. If all the moths are dying because of disease, then that's not selection - at least, not for color. It could be selection for disease resistance, assuming any moths develop it.You have to have a choice to be "selection". If the population loss is indiscriminate it's not selection. Right, but the black and white moths still mate with each other, so they're in the same population. Why assume they're in a different one?Population is the key to this. If mortality factors strain the population without really changing trait frequencies in any survival-related way, it's simply not selection.