Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Destroying Darwinism
bulldog98
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 319 (40896)
05-21-2003 12:38 PM


Syamsu's posts
quote:
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.
If you've talked to "Darwinists" who say that NS is a "theory," they're sorely misinformed.
Natural selection is a mechanism by which evolution occurs. There is no "natural selection theory." I'd have to agree with crashfrog that you don't understand the implications of calling something a "theory."
quote:
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.
Please tell me how Natural Selection can happen without variation. If everything was exactly the same (no variation), each would have the same chance of survival--and therefore, no evolution could occur. Variation is at the root of evolution--so how could you leave it out of the definition?
quote:
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.
Problem is with your white/black moth proposal--even if there were only white or only black moths present, that doesn't mean there is no variation. That just means there's no variation in the genes that encode the pigment. There would still be variation in other areas which could influence survival. Therefore, natural selection would still be at work, and evolution would still occur.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 05-21-2003 12:55 PM bulldog98 has replied
 Message 76 by Peter, posted 05-28-2003 10:01 AM bulldog98 has not replied

bulldog98
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 319 (40902)
05-21-2003 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NosyNed
05-21-2003 12:55 PM


Re: variation and selection
quote:
I suppose it would need a very picky definition. Is it NS if a landslide (a natural event) falls on some unlucky animal?
Was the Chixilub impact Natual selection?
No--those are not natural selection. However, you are correct in that, if we use again the example of a population of all white or all black moths, these events could cause evolution to occur (if a landslide exterminated all the white moths that existed, resulting in only black moths surviving, that would be a change in the allele frequency of the gene in the population that resulted in white pigmentation--and therefore, by definition, evolution has occurred). Think I was a little sloppy in my post above, my apologies.
quote:
The selection can happen purely randomly and if there is no variation it won't contribute to any change in alle frequency but it's "selection" of a sort I guess.
Other than that impossible condition (a population in the wild with no variation at all) then you're right of course.
Right--if there was no variation in the population to begin with, then even if a catastrophic event occurred, it would be meaningless in terms of evolution, because the allele frequencies would remain the same (unless it was an immediate extinction event, in which case you wouldn't have any alleles left to examine).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 05-21-2003 12:55 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 05-21-2003 3:07 PM bulldog98 has replied
 Message 30 by Syamsu, posted 05-22-2003 4:28 PM bulldog98 has replied

bulldog98
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 319 (40907)
05-21-2003 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
05-21-2003 3:07 PM


Re: variation and selection
quote:
Everyone understands that these are the same answer, except Syamsu who points to the "disagreement" as proof that there's something rotten in the Denmark of evolution.
[sinister voice]I see...one of them.[/sinister voice]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 05-21-2003 3:07 PM Percy has not replied

bulldog98
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 319 (41066)
05-22-2003 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Syamsu
05-22-2003 4:28 PM


Re: variation and selection
quote:
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.
Okey dokey. What then is your definition of "spreading?"
quote:
Mutation and recombination essentially describes evolution.
Also the the usage of fitness is much meaningless etc.
How then, do genes changed by recombination and mutation become more prevalent in a population? Are you arguing that everything happens strictly by chance and/or huge catastrophes (which could, conceivably, quickly alter the allele frequencies in a population?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Syamsu, posted 05-22-2003 4:28 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Syamsu, posted 05-23-2003 4:36 AM bulldog98 has replied

bulldog98
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 319 (41108)
05-23-2003 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Syamsu
05-23-2003 4:36 AM


Re: variation and selection
quote:
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.
And unless you're saying that the color of the trees directly caused the death of the white moths (rather than "indirectly," by allowing the moth predators to more easily see the white moths), what you are describing is precisely natural selection.
quote:
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.
Yes, and natural selection is differential reproductive success--so we're in agreement that natural selection has caused the change in color frequencies. Excellent.
quote:
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.
Apples and oranges. We're not talking about adding material to genes.
quote:
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.
I was referring to chance (particularly, a huge catastrophe) in that it could cause allele frequencies (e.g., mostly black moths to mostly white moths) to change rapidly. For example, if a volcano erupted and quickly burned the trees and killed all but the white moths, thus eliminating the "black" allele in the population, that would cause an immediate change in allele frequencies but would not be due to natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Syamsu, posted 05-23-2003 4:36 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Syamsu, posted 05-23-2003 1:06 PM bulldog98 has replied

bulldog98
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 319 (41124)
05-23-2003 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Syamsu
05-23-2003 1:06 PM


Re: variation and selection
quote:
You need to apply reproductive success twice, for black and white, but then there is still no need shown to compare the results.
And why not? They're in the same environment, competing for the same resources, sharing the same gene pool, hunted by the same predators. So what is your justification for not comparing the results?
quote:
You have not provided a justification for including variation in the definition, over simply using the theory individually, similar as is done in all other science theories.
Howzat? Other theories are not used "individually," they are supported by a mechanism. Take the Germ Theory of Disease. Sure, we know that bacteria/viruses/etc. can cause diseases, but without a mechanism for them to do so, our study is limited to isolating pathogens and comparing them to disease presentation. Natural selection is a mechanism for ToE.
quote:
What happens when you compare is that could for instance add a negative selection pressure, which affects one variant more adversely then the other, and then you would say this negative selective pressure selects for variant X over Y, eventhough the pressure made it reproduce less. It can become very deceptive with comparisons.
Can you give a non-building example of this?
quote:
Similarly buildings may become much smaller, and then you could still say the one building has become higher then the other building, eventhough the building has become smaller. It's not a very good way to describe, and should be avoided where possible. And anyway, it doesn't really matter which
You keep using the building analogy--it's not very effective, IMO.
quote:
I don't see how catastrophies relate to the subject at issue here. Anyway, I think what you mean to say is that the catastropy might have turned out different, so that all the white moths were killed. If the catastrophy is random that way then I guess it falls outside of Natural Selection, but otherwise it would still be included if the chance and effect of the catastrophy can be calculated.
We can skip over the catastrophe example--I was just trying to help you out but now I think it's confusing the issue more than anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Syamsu, posted 05-23-2003 1:06 PM Syamsu has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024