Destroying Darwinism

Syamsu has discussed the "zero variation" NS scenario at length here before. The discussion began when Syamsu asked if there could be any NS if there was no variation. The reply was the same as the one you just provided, though it was also pointed out that since reproduction is never perfect that after the initial "no variation" generation there *would* be variation in subsequent generations, and meaningful NS could operate on that variation to the extent it was expressed phenotypically.While everyone who has answered this question for Syamsu has provided in essence the same answer, each person provides that answer in a different way using different words and perspectives, and Syamsu has proven skilled at seeing disagreements where none exist. For example, one person might say that NS still happens, it just isn't meaningful because the surviving organisms have the same genes as the ones that die, while another person might say that NS doesn't happen and gives the exact same reason. 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.--Percy

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]

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?

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

quote:

---

Obviously there is no stated requirement for qualititive variation in gravity theory, as there is in the standard theory of Natural Selection.

---

Actually there is a QUANTITATIVE aspect for each, namely the variation in particle density for relativity; and the variation within both genetic and phenotypic aspects of a species relative to its environment.

quote:

---

You employ a tone of reasonability, for the hilarious absurd position that gravity theory and natural selection theory are structurally similar.

---

Tell me Syamsu, exactly which aspect of the topological map did you not understand. I am more than willing to explain this concept further J.

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.

---

Syamsu, I think that you have watched Star Wars Attack of the Clones one too many times. Please name a species population that does NOT have genetic and phenotypic variation. And variation does not mean your nonsensical example of a fifth leg, that is a saltational answer and has more problems then you do. Namely who does the hopeful monster breed with? [quote]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. {/quote Actually you highlight a large part of my point for me here. The main competition is not necessarily directly between variant, but between each individual variant and it’s environment. Longer or better survival means more descendents of that variant. Thank you for, unwittingly, making part of my point.

quote:

---

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.

---

If there were no selection then you would be right; however, we are discussing the role of variation w.r.t. selection based on interactions of the variant with the variants environment. And with your pathetic attempts to divert the issue I really do not think that you should be slinging terms like stupid around. You are the one who brought up a rather limited analogy, probably hoping that it could not be used against you. Don’t blame me for using it as a club against you due to your limited planning and analytical capabilities.Corrected by Taz,

quote:

---

Obviously you have no intention of seriously discussing Christianity, Judaism or Darwinism and how each affects the intellectual climate of opinion.

---

Probably more so than you are willing to discuss them relative to their same misuse as has been done w.r.t. Darwinian Theory.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Of course what you say is also false. There is no variation in most populations,

---

False,

quote:

---

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

---

sloppy syamsu, sloppy. To say that there is no variation in the number of legs is not the same as to say that there is no variations in legs within a population. Length for example, or insertion point of the muscle for another.

OK Syamsu, you made a statement that

quote:

---

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.

---

is a valid reason for the removal of the teaching of and use of the Darwinian model of evolution (I will not address your erros w.r.t. influence of specific scientists here and their social views).Here is my question, the following passage from the Qoran

quote:

---

4 "Therefore, when ye meet
The Unbelievers (in fight)
Smite at their necks;
At length, when ye have
Thoroughly subdued them,
Bind a bond
Firmly (on them): thereafter
(Is the time for) either
Generosity or ransom:
Until the war lays down
Its burdens: Thus (are ye
Commanded): but if it
Had been God's Will,
He could certainly have exacted
Retribution from them (Himself):
But (He lets you fight)
In order to test you,
Some with others.
But those who are slain
In the way of God,
He will never let
Their deeds be lost.

---

(Sura 4 I believe), as well as similar passages, has been used as justification by certian Moslems for acts of murder against civilians. Some moslems disagree and say that this is a misreading or misinterpretation. Based on your statements re: Darwinian evolution we would be morally justified in trying to remove Islam fomr the earth. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain your reasons?------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

You mean he saw it twice?

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

Actually, the acting was so bad that I would say once was one time too many .Actually I think that Syamsu is suffering from replicant fading, he has cloned that sad, sorry, disproven arguement of his a few times to many .His grasp on physics and chemistry appear to be a little weak as well.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

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.

I wouldn't say that it is useless, it just adds more illustrationof the deficiencies in what Symasu says. Not to mention that he totally misses the point. When buildings were made of less strong materials taller buildings either had to be VERY wide or they fell down due to simple gravity or other natural forces. Variation in building materials (ie steel) allowed for differences in structure heights to width ratios for stable buildings.If you hand a man a club Syamsu and then taunt him, do not be suprised if he bashes you over the nogin' with it.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

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