Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Destroying Darwinism
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 319 (41121)
05-23-2003 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Syamsu
05-23-2003 5:23 AM


Re: relation of variation
Do you honestly believe that the tower of Pisa and the Eiffeltower are 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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Syamsu, posted 05-23-2003 5:23 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Syamsu, posted 05-24-2003 11:51 AM crashfrog 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

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 48 of 319 (41222)
05-24-2003 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by crashfrog
05-23-2003 1:31 PM


Re: relation of variation
Ah finally both crashfrog and bulldog come around to looking at things my way. I mean now you are using the same justification for including variation that I proposed. You both say that there is competition for limited resources. I don't believe this is true in the moth example. White moths fit to white trees, and black moths fit to black trees, they each have their own resource. So you see it isn't neccesarily the case that variants would compete each other into extiction, that one variant in effect causes the other variant to stop reproducing / persisting.
If there was an all white population, and a black moth was added, then there might continue to be both black and white moths. If we should find that black wingcolor persists, then it becomes interesting to look at how black wingcolor contributes to reproduction. This might be camouflage just like with white wingcolor, but this could also be something like mating appeal or any number of other things. You would be comparing apples and oranges. This is not just semantics. Obviously selection as you perceive it is the survival of the fittest, and on the flipside it reads death of the less fit. That is merely encroachment/replacement.
A reproduces B doesn't reproduce
A doesn't reproduce B reproduces
A reproduces B reproduces
A doesn't reproduce B doesn't reproduce
So you have only covered numbers 1 and 2 with your conception of selection, but you have not covered numbers 3 and 4. Not covered that both black and white moths persist, and not covered that both black and white become extinct.
You should instead have:
A reproduces or doesn't reproduce
B reproduces or doesn't reproduce
That means you should look at the positive and negative selective factors on the black wingcolor trait, and you should look at the positive and negative selective factors on the white wingcolor trait. Obviously A and B can also be selective factors to each other.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2003 1:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 05-24-2003 12:35 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2003 1:06 PM Syamsu has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 49 of 319 (41223)
05-24-2003 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Syamsu
05-24-2003 11:51 AM


Re: relation of variation
You both say that there is competition for limited resources. I don't believe this is true in the moth example.
No, It isn't in the strict sense of resourse.
But you're whole view is ridiculously simplified.
1) There is variation here. Among many other things two different (and shades I would guess) of color.
2) It doesn't matter how selectin happens. It might be by competition over food or place to breed. But in this case it is "competition" in avoiding predators.
When the environment changes the proportions of one variety over another is changed. That's a situation of variety and selection changing the population.
What is your problem with this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Syamsu, posted 05-24-2003 11:51 AM Syamsu has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 319 (41225)
05-24-2003 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Syamsu
05-24-2003 11:51 AM


Re: relation of variation
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Syamsu, posted 05-24-2003 11:51 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Syamsu, posted 05-25-2003 7:42 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 05-25-2003 1:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 51 of 319 (41231)
05-24-2003 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Syamsu
05-20-2003 9:01 AM


NS
And the recent chapter in WHEN CELLS DIE p19 ( I will write a book review when I am finished with the "eye" chapter) confirms S's position in general though I have to meet this position effectually e-e Y?, "Natural selection does not act directly on genes, but on the phenotypes they achieve...Natural selection sanctioned by death is a process of competition...This paradox, as previously mentioned, renders difficult (and counterintuitive) any reasoning on programmed cell death in single-celled organisms in terms of natural selection."Wiley-Liss 19998 more later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Syamsu, posted 05-20-2003 9:01 AM Syamsu has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 52 of 319 (41267)
05-25-2003 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
05-24-2003 1:06 PM


Re: semantics
It's not just semantics, there are fundamental differences in the logic used. That is shown simplified in the A and B example. Obviously, you don't understand that.
It's only because there is a prize for first place, and second and third that marathonrunners can be said to be in competition, otherwise they are just running for themselves yes. So you see again you use the logic of it's the one or the other, it's the one or the other marathonrunner, where in Nature both variants can reproduce, or both not reproduce.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2003 1:06 PM crashfrog has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 319 (41282)
05-25-2003 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
05-24-2003 1:06 PM


Re: relation of variation
crashfrog writes:
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?
This might not be the best analogy. Distance runners definitely do not compete with clocks, nor do horses, nor do cars. No runner can know what time he's actually capable of on that day on that course under those conditions, and so he's constantly trading off in his mind how he feels versus who his competition is versus how his competition looks versus how far in front or in back his competitition is versus whether he thinks his competition may be playing possum versus what his competition has done in past races and so on and so forth. A runner will produce a completely different time running against the clock than against competition.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2003 1:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 05-25-2003 3:00 PM Percy has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 54 of 319 (41287)
05-25-2003 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
05-25-2003 1:19 PM


Re: relation of variation
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 05-25-2003 1:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 05-25-2003 4:24 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 59 by Syamsu, posted 05-26-2003 12:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 55 of 319 (41290)
05-25-2003 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
05-25-2003 3:00 PM


Re: relation of variation
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.
I won't pretend I understand any discussion involving Syamsu, but runners *do* interact, not only mentally in the way I described, but also physically. When there's a headwind, runner's will draft, and you'll even see this indoors in shorter races like the mile, and you often have to move to the outside to pass, forcing you to run further. Runners sometimes bump. In cross country you can only pass where's there's sufficient room, and the person in front can take the easier route. With cars and boats and bicycles drafting and physical positioning are extremely important. One boat can temporarily becalm another by moving in front of the wind, taking the wind out of its sails and leaving it stalled. And in roller derby the interaction gets even more physical.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 05-25-2003 3:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 05-25-2003 4:39 PM Percy has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 56 of 319 (41293)
05-25-2003 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
05-25-2003 4:24 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 05-25-2003 4:24 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 05-25-2003 5:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 57 of 319 (41299)
05-25-2003 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by crashfrog
05-25-2003 4:39 PM


Well, true. I guess I was referring more to races like sprinting, where runners run in their own lanes and stuff.
I'd say a sprint comes closest to running against the clock. Still, there's something about having another person in the next lane that gets the adrenalyn flowing like no clock could ever do, and seeing someone pulling away from you can inspire you to a much greater effort than seeing digits click by.
Running against people instead of clocks can also cause much slower efforts. For example, in early heats against lesser competition you'll probably push only hard enough to win, saving energy for later heats. And in longer races if you're approaching the finish line 20 yards in front you'll probably just coast across, while if you're being challenged you'll be in a sprint.
I wasn't trying to support either yours or Syamsu's side. I've never seen Syamsu engaged in a discussion where his position made sense or where he gave any indication of understanding what anyone else was saying, so to be honest I don't understand the details of this discussion, I just thought the analogy *might* (emphasize the "might") not be appropriate - I wasn't completely sure.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 05-25-2003 4:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4437 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 58 of 319 (41353)
05-26-2003 11:39 AM


I will continue to be confused by Syamsu's arguments, and I will not be posting on this topic anymore.
Anyone who's more than a little tired of this is free to join me.
The Rock Hound

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Syamsu, posted 05-26-2003 12:58 PM IrishRockhound has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 59 of 319 (41361)
05-26-2003 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
05-25-2003 3:00 PM


Re: relation of variation
I never said or implied, that organisms would have to touch each other or something for there to be competition between organisms. They have to influence each other's chance of reproduction for there to be competition between organisms.
Only 1 can win the marathonrace, so there is encroachment of one runner on all the rest. But if the runners disregard who wins, then they are all just running, and there is no competition between them. The prize in Nature, comparitive to winning the marathon, is that the variation sweeps the population, that it makes all the other variants extinct, after some generations. But this doesn't happen all the time, so you're theory of Natural Selection doesn't apply generally, it's prejudicial. As before sometimes A and B both reproduce, both variants persist, sometimes they both don't reproduce. Sometimes they variants may come to be in separate populations, by their variation applying to a different resource. That's not a matter of them competing with each other, so it falls outside the scope of your definition of Natural Selection.
To have your theory apply generally you need to look at each organism individually, or each variation individually, and look at if it reproduces or not. If there is competition between variants, then that will simply show up among the selective factors on the variant, when you look at a variant individually.
I should say that the current standard definition of Natural Selection does not neccesitate competition between variants, to apply. It should be understood that your argument based on competition, is not in support of the current standard definition of Natural Selection, which I was arguing against in post 1. The definition of selection of for instance Darwin in "Descent of Man", and arguably the one in "Origin of Species", and one I found in a recent Medicine book, do require competition for Natural Selection to apply, but those are not the standard in biology.
Nobel prizewinner Konrad Lorenz is not the simplest of minds, nor Haeckel and some of the other of the most influential Darwinists. Their racism is more sophisticatedly associated to eugenics, but essentially the pseudoscientific credibility of it is based on the comparitive character of Natural Selection, saying one is better then the other.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 05-25-2003 3:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 05-26-2003 2:18 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 90 by Brad McFall, posted 05-28-2003 5:22 PM Syamsu has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 60 of 319 (41362)
05-26-2003 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by IrishRockhound
05-26-2003 11:39 AM


You have to actually entertain the possibility that you're wrong, to have a discussion. The intellectual curiosity that follows from that should sustain you in discussion, and not make you tired. Also it helps to have an interest in the power of highly systemized and formalized knowledge.
You discuss like a Darwinist, by which I mean oppositional. That is also Percipient's stated belief of the right way of discussing, on the one vs the other forum, about the one variant vs the other variant theory.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by IrishRockhound, posted 05-26-2003 11:39 AM IrishRockhound 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