Destroying Darwinism

This is just another reformulation of my old argument about cutting variation from the definition of Darwinism. Reformulated to try to appeal to some creationist out there, who has an interest in getting rid of Darwinism.I will now shortly explain what is wrong with Natural Selection theory. You may know the famous example of the peppered moth in industrialized England. The Darwinist story goes as follows:Soot from industries makes the white trees turn black, which results in white moths losing the camouflage of the white trees. They are consequently preyed upon more by birds. The black moths in the moth population have an excellent camouflage for the blackened trees so they tend to be preyed upon less then they were preyed upon before. As the white moths get killed before reproduction more then black, gradually the color of moths turns from white to black. The population becomes adapted to the new environment.What is wrong here should be obvious, when trying some theoretical experiments to find out the workings of the theory of Natural Selection.Q) What for instance, if there were no black moths in the population?A) If the population were not varying then the theory of Natural Selection would simply not apply.You could add a black moth into an all white population, and then the theory of Natural Selection would start to apply to the population. If you take away the black moth, then the theory of Natural Selection would stop to apply.The theory of Natural Selection is then shown to be very different from all other theories in science. For instance gravity theory doesn't start and stop to apply to planets at the appearance or disappearance of some planet in the systen. Gravity theory applies continuously.There has to be some justification for including differential variation in the definition, for it to be scientifically valid. Some justification that shows what extra meaningful knowledge is provided by including variation in the definition. Let's see, we can describe white moths being adapted to white trees without referring to variation. We can describe black moths being adapted to black trees still, even if there are white moths in the population also. When you get down to it, it seems very hard to justify including variation, since we can do so much without it. In fact to include variation is about as meaningful as to have a theory of different length of buildings for instance. The Eiffeltower is about 350 meters high, the tower of Pisa is about 50 meters high. The differential buildinglength of the Eiffeltower and the tower of Pisa is then 350/50=7. And so with the moths we might come to conclude that the differential reproductive success of white moths and black moths is 7. But, so what, who cares. The answer is nobody cares. However interesting it may be to know the reproductive success of white moths as their wingcolor relates to white trees, and to know the reproductive success of black moths likewise, that then doesn't neccesarily makes it interesting to compare the reproductive rates of white and black moths. Remember that when there is no variation in the population, then the reproductive rate of the white moth would be completely ignored, unseen by the theory of Natural Selection. But is it then not interesting to know that if trees turn black that then white moths will be decimated by birds? Of course it is interesting, meanignful knowledge about the moths, but it is completely ignored in Natural Selection because there isn't any variation in the population. So Natural Selection is focused on this comparison, which we should believe is very important, but how this is important is still a mystery. Maybe the importance of this comparing has something to do with competition. But look at the moth example again if competition between white and black plays a major role there. When the trees turn black then the white moths are decimated by the birds. So one could argue, the birds are fully fed on white moths, so that they don't eat so many black moths anymore. When the destruction of the one moth gives a better chance at reproductin for the other moth, then u might say there is a competitve relationship between them. But that answer on balance would be wrong, because the increase in black moths is not due to the decrease in white moths. The increase in black moths in due to there being more black trees for them to have camouflage on. If all white moths were captured without making the trees black then there wouldn't be such a significant increase in black moths. To fundamentally associate competition with a difference structure is of course also flawed. Organisms that are exactly the same would tend to go for exactly the same resources, and that is where competition is the most intense. When there is a difference then that gives reason to suppose that the competition is less.So by this reasoning it is entirely legitimate to say that the theory of Natural Selection is invalid. I should add though that to look at how white wingcolor of moths contributes to reproduction in relation to white trees is valid, but of course there is no need to refer to variation for that.This technical invalidation by itself would not destroy Darwinism yet. However when it seen that the comparitive part in Darwinism generally leads to judgementalism among Darwinists, like saying one is better then the other, then there should be enough motivation to get rid of it. It is of course very embarassing to have it be found that Konrad Lorenz, one of the more influential Darwinian scientists, is shown to have used the theory to propagandize Nazism, and to have personally participated in ethnic cleansing himself. And in conjuction with this fundamental flaw in the theory that facillitates this kind of political manipulation on the part of scientists, it should lead to the collapse of the theory. I think it can be persuasively shown that there is a pattern of corruption among Darwinian scientists to manipulate the politics and or religious beliefs of it's audience by their usage of the "is better then" language in Darwinism. Not always has this been to support Nazi or racist ideas, but you would be very hardpressed to find a single influential Darwinian scientist whose political and religious views are not intimately interwoven with their personal conception of Darwinism in their socalled works of science. Darwin himself shows that most clearly in "Descemt of Man" where he goes to talk about when it is right to marry, and talks about when genocide is moral, and talks about what the highest state of morality is. The book is defacto a sort of bible. Other examples include Haeckel and his monism and racism, Galton and his eugenics, Dawkins and his atheism - antireligionism, which are all apparently fed by their conception of Darwinism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are not making any sense.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Natural Selection in it's standard definition, is not a mechanism, it is a comparison.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Obviously there is no stated requirement for qualititive variation in gravity theory, as there is in the standard theory of Natural Selection. You employ a tone of reasonability, for the hilarious absurd position that gravity theory and natural selection theory are structurally similar. You, and Darwinists generally could make good lawyers. Since variation is required for Natural Selection to apply by the standard definition of it in science, NS then stops to apply when there is no differential variation present. That is simply a consequence of including variation in the definition, that the theory stops to apply when there is no variation.There is no consequence to variation, except in cases of competition between variants, replacement, or encroachment. The consequence in the moth example is from the relationship of white wingcolor and white trees, and black wingcolor and black trees. There is no consequence to the Eiffeltower being 7 times higher then the tower of Pisa. Obviously it is incredibly stupid to think like there is a consequence to that as you do. Your kind of logic is a common trick used in advertising.Obviously you have no intention of seriously discussing either Christianity, Judaism or Darwinism and how it affects the intellectual climate of opinion.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

....."more favourable"....That is a comparison. It is not a mechanism.Well I just hope that u got the absurdity of the stop and start characteristic of Natural Selection theory, if u didn't understand everything. That when you add a black moth to an all white population, then the theory starts to apply, and when you take it away then it stops to apply. Obviously you are prejudiced for evolutionism, because with any other theory I believe you wouldn't accept such an absurdity. Or maybe you would accept anything that is part of the status quo.....hmmmmmm.Actually, it is generally acknowledged that Natural Selection can happen without variation, however Darwinists still insist on including variation in the definition. So I feel justified in attacking Natural Selection as though it included variation. The duplicity about including variation in the definition is the responsibility of Darwinists, not mine.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Please tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that Natural Selection isn't a theory.This is just semantics, I don't believe you can ever hope to make any substantial point with it, but anyway, Natural Selection is generally acknowledged as a theory, by Darwinists also, and this use of the word theory is proper language AFAIK.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

To say that variation exists is obviously not a sufficient justification for including variation in the definition. Your argument has no content.Of course what you say is also false. There is no variation in most populations, or there is no variation in every aspect of organisms in a population. For instance the number of legs among sheep is a steady four in most populations, which doesn't preclude the occasional five legged sheep being born. Now to ask of a Darwinist how many legs does a sheep have? The Darwinist couldn't say most times, because most times the trait is not varying, and therefore it falls outside the scope of the theory most times.I'm not so much pointing at disagreement between Darwinists, since there isn't much of any. I'm just pointing out the duplicity of Darwinists saying that Natural Selection applies without variation, but then insisting on including variation in the definition. That's a disagreement each Darwinist has with themselves.Any remotely reasonable justification for including variation should, just like Darwin, rely on the carrying capacity of the environment. Unfortunately that logic also doesn't work, as I've shown repeatedly, but that is the original reason that variation is included in the definition of Natural Selection. The reason was not because variation exists, which is really a rather stupid thing to say....regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Your seemingly serious argument that Natural Selection and Gravity theory are structurally similar in regards to the use of variation, is nonsense. I wonder how many people on this forum you have convinced of the merits of your view. Not to make it out as though you have convinced noone, but I am just curious to what extent sheer authorititive meandering is effective, without the argument actually having any real substance at all.As far as I know a 5th leg is supposedly a smallish genetic change, it falls within gradualism still, although of course it is completely counterintuitive to gradualism. The discoverer of the controlgenes, which genes are thought to enable such small genetic change to have large phenotypic effects, complained much about your sort of attitude, and complained about Darwinism in general. That is a real scientist who actually did something.Again, the point is that you fail to appreciate the number of legs as a Darwinist, when it is not varying. For every variation you see, there should be about zillion similarities, since organisms in a population are essentially the same. Biologists going out in the field need not note any variation at all, and they usually don't, since what apparent heritable variation there is, is almost entirely inconsequential. There's almost never any very meaningful form of evolution in a population, what is observed mostly, as the fossil record shows also, is stasis.The Eiffeltower takes 7 times the wind of the tower of pisa, through it being 7 times higher. The differential windcatching is then 7. As you can see an interaction with the environment, but the comparison is meaningless still. So to is the differential reproductive success meaningless. That it is meaningless is further evidenced by noone being actually even remotely or the tiniest little bit interested in what the differential reproductive success of the first say proto photosynthetic plants was. Who cares? Nobody.You already have a quantification for the relationship between the environment and the organism, which is the reproductive success. There isn't neccesarily much of any relation between variants, except in case of competition/encroachment/replacement. But as shown, in the example of the moths, that has been most widely used to demonstrate Natural Selection, there is insignificant competition between the variants.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Of course technical errors in science should be removed, but they aren't because that takes too much work, except if the error is judged to do a lot of damage. Also once variation is removed from the theory, you are still left with the basicly meaningful thing, which is the relation of white wingcolor to white trees, and black wingcolor to black trees in terms of reproduction.I would say that the passage should be discussed, and the interpretation of it. I can certainly say that some interpretations should be removed. Whether or not the passage in it's entirety or the whole of Islam should be removed is another matter. I don't think the passage you quoted is an altogether innocuous passage. What I mean by that is that it is natural to think that you should kill unbelievers when it says "smite at their necks".regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Grasping at straws.You have no argument at all, since you have no justification for including variation in the definition of Natural Selection at all.I guess I should say that again, since I think you may be succesful in misleading some people to think that anything you have written so far has any substance. There might be people seriously contemplating the scientific merits and demerits of differential gravitational success on account of what you have written. You are irresponsibly misleading people by your defensiveness.Again, the original reason for including variation is to be seen in conjuction with including limited resources. You can argue that justification again if you want, but as you know I have already refuted that argument numerous times. So really there is no valid argument left, unless you have something completely new.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't think evolution is meaningfully described by Natural Selection. In Darwinism the evolution of black wingcolor starts with there being black wingcolor. Words can mean anything you want them to mean of course, but the Darwinist usage of evolution is IMO meaningless. More accurately what is described in Natural Selection is termed spreading rather then evolving IMO. Mutation and recombination essentially describes evolution.Also the the usage of fitness is much meaningless etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

By spreading I mean that the reproductionrate is faster then the deathrate, I don't mean relative frequencies. So what happened in the moth example is that the black moth spread due to the trees turning black. Also what happened of course is that the number of white moths decreased due to the trees turning black. The evolution is then the mutation/recombination which made the white or black wingcolor, and the rest is reproduction or no reproduction as the case may be.A building can become more higher then another building when you add length to it, or when you make the other building smaller etc. same logic as with genes becoming more prevalent.I don't understand why you refer to chance. I think you must be mistaken that when there is for instance a uniform population of all white moths, that then selection is random. Of course the relation of white wingcolor to white trees is not random even when the population is uniformly white. This relation contributes to reproduction, and so selection is then not random.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 05-23-2003]

So far the counterarguments presented were:- gravity theory is just like differential gravitational success
- Natural Selection isn't a theory or a model
- something about chance
- variation exists in every population due to the regularity of copying errors
- variation has to be understood in conjuction with limited resourcesSo far I have presented the best counterargument, the last, eventhough I didn't quite explain it in full. When you argue based on limited resources, then you can argue in terms of relationship where the one variant influences the reproduction of the other variant. That kind of actual physical relationship is a more reasonable justification for including variation then the huge amount of nonsense y'all offered. Generally writing in a tone of demanding and pontificating authority while writing the nonsense that you do.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Do you honestly believe that the tower of Pisa and the Eiffeltower are related?If no then how come you believe that the variants in Natural Selection are meaningfully related? It is just a comparison same as with buildings after all.Selection is individual, it doesn't happen to a differential pairing of variant individuals. Nothing happens between the variants, as with the black and white moths.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

And are all white things also related, coz of them being white? It's strictly Platonic.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu