Destroying Darwinism

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?

Actually Syamsu is pulling a Salty. Kind of like a Flying Circus
"I Told You Once" arguement, in this case for an arguement. Many people, myself included have provided papers and data to Syamsu which he cheerfully ignores. He has provided no data, example that are used to club him over the head due to the errors that he inserts, ect and still be makes the same statements sans supporting data and in teh face of contrary data. Rather sad actually.And now for something completely different.A man with two buttocks( * )( * )------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

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?)

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

Hi Syamsu, rather then engage in the dataless, concept-less and generally pointless verbal and mental masturbation that you appear to prefer I though that I would just provide another reference to show that you really have NO clue as to what you are talking about.

quote:

---

Evolution: Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 872—882.

​

PATTERNS OF NATURAL SELECTION ON SIZE AT METAMORPHOSIS IN WATER FROGS
Res Altwegg,a, 2 and Heinz-Ulrich Reyera

​

aInstitute of Zoology, University of Zrich, Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zrich, Switzerland

​

ABSTRACT

​

Strategies for optimal metamorphosis are key adaptations in organisms with complex life cycles, and the components of the larval growth environment causing variation in this trait are well studied empirically and theoretically. However, when relating these findings to a broader evolutionary or ecological context, usually the following assumptions are made: (1) size at metamorphosis positively relates to future fitness, and (2) the larval growth environment affects fitness mainly through its effect on timing of and size at metamorphosis. These assumptions remain poorly tested, because data on postmetamorphic fitness components are still rare. We created variation in timing of and size at metamorphosis by manipulating larval competition, nonlethal presence of predators, pond drying, and onset of larval development, and measured the consequences for subsequent terrestrial survival and growth in 1564 individually marked water frogs (Rana lessonae and R. esculenta), raised in enclosures in their natural environment. Individuals metamorphosing at a large size had an increased chance of survival during the following terrestrial stage (mean linear selection gradient: 0.09), grew faster and were larger at maturity than individuals metamorphosing at smaller sizes. Late metamorphosing individuals had a lower survival rate (mean linear selection gradient: 0.03) and grew more slowly than early metamorphosing ones. We found these patterns to be consistent over the three years of the study and the two species, and the results did not depend on the nature of the larval growth manipulation. Furthermore, individuals did not compensate for a small size at metamorphosis by enhancing their postmetamorphic growth. Thus, we found simple relationships between larval growth and postmetamorphic fitness components, and support for this frequently made assumption. Our results suggest postmetamorphic selection for fast larval growth and provide a quantitative estimate for the water frog example.

---

I also refer you to the concept of a topological landscape which can be used to deal with particle density or biological landscapes.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Do you honestly believe that the tower of Pisa and the Eiffeltower are related?

---

Only in the same way that your four legs comment had any validity, as a starting point. They, Pisa and Eiffel, are both towers.You are getting almost unbearably sloppy in your logic recently Syamsu.[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 05-23-2003]

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

Depends on the definition of the data sets.I mean come on child, that is elementary logic and math. Once again Syamsu tryies analogies and gets his points refuted using them because he does not understand what he is talking about.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
TazPS,
I also noticed that once again you skipped replying to real world info and data. Typical.[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 05-23-2003]

You still make no sense, Syamsu. You have produced no argument against evolution or natural selection that I can understand, let alone be convinced by. Rambling on about sheep having five legs black and white moths does not constitute a scientific discussion, and as far as I can see you are merely wasting all our time. I refer you to Dr. Taz's earlier post regarding scientific papers on the subject of evolution - if you are not willing to at least learn about this subject, how can you formulate an opinion on it? Everyone else posting here has been clear in their arguments against you. Calling their input a "huge amount of nonsense" is insulting, especially when your own arguments are so confusing.In regards to your earlier comments - NS does not stop and start, as you say. It is a continuous process, as the environment constantly puts pressure on a species."More favourable"? This phrase is your justfication that NS is a comparison? Of course, then - a comparison is involved because we must compare the original species to the new one that has arisen as a result of the enhancement of certain traits. This occurs because of the mechanism of natural selection.Finally, variation and natural selection are intrinsically linked. How can the most favourable traits be enhanced if there is no variation to produce them? If there is no variety in the height, weight, colour etc. of a species, then no natural selection occurs. Take your example of the moths - they obviously must show slight variations in their colour, no matter what it is. If those with a lighter or darker colour are more likely to survive because of their slightly better camoflage, then overall the moth species becomes lighter or darker because the most advantageous variation is selected and enhanced.If this does not convince you - and I doubt it will - could you possibly present some scientific evidence showing that natural selection does not occur? I should point out that you also have not answered my original question - you have not presented any alternative to evolution or natural selection. You have merely stated constantly that you think they are wrong.(By the way I think Attack of the Clones was absolutely terrible - I prefer the original movies.)The Rock Hound

First of all this abstract doesn't say how size contributes to reproduction. What if we were talking about some kind of proto-photo synthesis here, would it be alright to ignore how photosynthesis worked, just the same as these people ignore how size works in the abstract? So you see the most interesting data, the relationship of the organism or trait to the environment, is missing. Also Natural Selection is concerned with persistence/preservation/reproductive continuity, not how many of them there are. To say that there are more large then small, is well, not saying very much in terms of selection. Only when the large would make the small extinct in competition is there something meaningful going on between the variants in terms of selection. For all I know this paper still leaves it open for small to be persistent. Of course you chose a convenient gradualist example of size. The holes in the method is more clearly demonstrated with a more specific variation such as a specific chemical produced, something with a specific function, which then the other variant does not have. You seem to be reifying gradualism into a scientific hypothesis, but it's merely a notion. While it may not happen very much that something with a new and specific function is produced, it does happen very much that something that functioned in the parent is mutated and doesn't function anymore in the offspring. So you see you still have some form of "negative" saltation all the time, and also some "positive" saltation that is more rare. To deny that would mean that you have to find a theoretical reason why differences cannot be very distinct.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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.

In pontificating your authority without providing any meaningful argumentation, you would do well to remember that people still should have the ability to discard pseudoscientific racist ranting of
Darwinists like the nobel prize winner Konrad Lorenz. You leave little room for criticism in pontificating your authority as you do. I have more then enough familiarity with the subject then is reasonable to ask on an internet debating forum. Besides, you all seem to know very little about how to investigate a theory, how to test a theory. Theories have to apply generally, and you should check for scenario's such as clones to test the general applicability of your theory.Is it an occurence that the eiffeltower is higher then the tower of Pisa? In so far as that is an occurence, then Natural Selection is an occurence also, and a mechanism if you wish. The mechanic part in Natural Selection is the relation of the trait to the environment, the relation of the white wingcolor, to the white trees. But ridiculously you make it out as though the relation between white and black moths is mechanical.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You need to apply reproductive success twice, for black and white, but then there is still no need shown to compare the results.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.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. 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.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.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 05-23-2003]