Destroying Darwinism

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

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]

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 reproduceSo 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 reproduceThat 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

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

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

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

First you *insist* on including competition in the definition, and then when I present the rationale for including competition in the definition of Natural Selection you deny it has merit. You have no clue about what you're arguing.In "Descent of Man" by Darwin, you'll find it stated in the beginning as a central hypothesis, "do races or species of man encroach on one another until some finally become extinct"? Countless times after that it talks about, if the one only has a slight competitive disadvantage, then that that the race or tribe is surely doomed. Again, the original reason for including competition, is to compete until extinction. It makes no sense to say compete until it is dominant, because the subject of interest in Natural Selection is persistence and not dominance. There is no neccesary relation between dominance/subservieance and persistence/extinction.I know what the standard is in this respect, because I've asked some very knowledgeable Darwinists. Competition is also not in the most common used biology definitions I see on the internet.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I'll ask again for some creationists to join the discussion. There really is no valid counterargument against the technical point I'm making, or at least it wasn't offered in this discussion. The Darwinists here are just blowing wind.Basicly you just have to keep in mind that the significant thing is the relation of an organism to it's environment. Whether or not that relation contributes to reproduction. So the significant knowledge with the moths is that white moths have camouflage from predatory birds on white trees, and that this contributes to their reproduction. There is no need to compare with black moths at all, or compare with elephants or ants, or any other creatures whatsoever, because it doesn't provide meaningful knowledge.You can know it's credible that Darwinism is faulty eventhough it is a generally accepted scientific theory because:- the main works in Darwinism are written in proza style, in stead of formalized systemized knowledge style, and technical faults like this can easily be glossed over in proza- Darwinists are generally ideological about their theory, different then scientists in other disciplines. The generally comabtive attitude of Darwinists doesn't allow for open inquiry.- The trackrecord of Darwinist science is generally abysmal, for instance for up to 72 years they denied the fundaments of modern genetics, Mendellism, because they couldn't fit it into their theory. (as you can see in this thread, some Darwinists in the year 2003 still have a problem with affirming that hereditary particles are discrete, and not gradual in nature)- Some notable philosphers, Popper, also criticized Natural Selection as fundamentally flawed (the retraction of Popper was simply to say that *some* definitions of Selection are correct, but other definitions, like the current standard, remain incorrect by Popper's criticism)So knowing what the flaw is (comparing with variants), and knowing that it is credible that a flaw could exist in a theory (prozaic nature of Darwinism), and knowing what is still a meaningful use of selection (white moths on white trees are selected for), the discussion should turn to how this flaw can be corrected.I think the way to do it is to have the creationist papers that talk about the link of racism and Nazism to Darwinism, relate the link to the fundamental flaw in Darwinism, as I've argued in my first post. The constant judgementalism in Darwinist language talking about one creature being better then another, is what made it support racism, and Nazism. This approach at the same time invalidates the worth of Darwinism to science, as well as to humanity. Most times when faced with an argument that links Darwinism to racism and Nazism, people will say like, maybe it has some relations to racism and Nazism, but it's still science, so we need it. That kind of opinion becomes invalid, when it is shown that Darwinism is scientifically flawed.It's still generally unknown that the highly influential Darwinian scientist Konrad Lorenz participated in "selecting" people for the Nazi regime. I think a paper with this fact as it's starting point, and reference to established historians like Klaus Fischer, as well as reference to facts like that the Hitleryouth were taught Darwinism in Darwinist styled schools, and the general pervasiveness of Darwinist concepts in Nazi literature, would in conjuction with the flaw, convince people that the creationists since Williams Jennings Bryant have been right all along, regardless of whether evolution is true or not.(William Jennings Bryan was the one who argued for creationism in the famous Scopes trial, which was about the legality of teaching evolutionary theory in Kansas. the textbook teacher Scopes used was of course laced with Darwinist racism, and would still be illegal to teach in the present)regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As far as I can tell, you have no point. Of course it is not good enough to bring out the old, it survives longer and therefore it reproduces more, to adequately describe how large size contributes reproduction. We don't want all our biologypapers to contain the exactsame words, with the only difference being the name of the trait in question.If you tell me you will take consequence if I provide reference to a mutation that leads to a really very distinct change, then I will go look for it. Of course it's ridiculous that your argument relies on mutations not leading to very distinct differences. That is just a notion, you can't possibly call it hard science that differences produced by mutation are not very distinct, or not produce a fundamentally distinct quality.Now you begin to talk of blending, how bizarre. It seems like you're still stuck in pre-Mendellian times! I think you've demonstrated how the denial of Mendellism for up to 72 years by Darwinists, was connected to the difficulties and deceptive nature of making comparisons, to have a theory focused on making comparisons.I use saltation the way you used the word to refer to a sheep with 5 legs.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Basicly you are *very* confused about if selection should mean:- more reproduction of the one then the other,
- replacement/encroachment of one by the other,
- reproduction or no reproduction of the one.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well you use the word mutation actually, where a Darwinist would have used the word variation. For as far as I can tell, you already have cut variation from the definition of selectionregards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

1- more reproduction of the one then the other,
2- replacement/encroachment of one by the other,
3- reproduction or no reproduction of the one.Natural Selection refers to nr 3. Nr 3 can cover all yes, both scenario's in number 1 and 2, but nr 1 and nr 2 cannot cover all. You define natural Selection as nr 1. But then when I asked why you include variation, you refer to number 2, your reason for including variation is the limited shared resources etc.. that is Darwin's original Malthusian formulation of selection meaning encroachment/replacement.Uniform populations are also being selected, and we can see it happening now a lot with endangered species, that the negative selective pressures on many species/organisms are mounting. Variation is basicly irrellevant with endangered species, eventhough the population may be varying. Endangered species are not covered by a definition of selection that includes variation.I don't understand why you don't just take the definition that's the most powerful to use. Why you don't just take the definition most flexible to use, why you are sticking to a definition that says, well this planet goes around the sun faster then the other planet, this building is taller then that building, this oganism reproduces faster then that organism. It's such a load of rubbish.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Peter:
"no amount of variation will enable species survival"Which means then that it isn't covered by differential reproductive succes of variants, which means that differential reproductive success of variants is generally irrellevant to endangered species. Are you going to go looking for a variant in the endangered species, and compare it with another variant? Again, it doesn't apply, no matter how many times you say it does. Logic dictates that.Sorry Peter, but you are just liar. I can make nothing more of it. You will just persist in having it your way, eventhough clearly you're wrong.Obviously to know what helps and inhibits the reproduction of an organism is the main thing people who are looking at endangered species want to know, yet you invalidate that way of looking at organisms, just because you want to defend some more prosaic theory.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You're just trying to turn this into something about authority, trying to avoid actually engaging in argument. You still haven't provided any justification at all for including variation. Crashfrog did provide one, the one that Darwin also provided, which was then refuted, or actually crashfrog discarded his own justification.You have to describe how the size interacts with the environment, and basically what you're saying is that it survives longer then the smaller ones, and therefore reproduces more.So how to describe something like proto-photosynthesis. You would just say like oh the photo-syntesis variants, survive longer and reproduce more then the ones that don't have it. You will simply not talk about how photosynthesis relates to light. Therefore your science is essentially empty of meaning.You also avoided to address that Natural Selection is about persistence. The paper still leaves it open for there to be small variants which have stable reproductioncycles.I made the reference to the sheep with 5 legs, and then you called that saltation. How do you believe the genetic basis for legs to be organized anyway? It seems you believe that each leg has a completely different genetic basis, in stead of the legs using the same genetic basis, or similar genetic basis. That's the only way I can understand your insistence on gradualism in opposition to sheep with 5 legs. Of course the genetic difference between 4 and 5 legged sheep can be quite small, so apparently you don't use a genetic definition for gradualism. Your notion of gradualism is then completely from pre-Mendellian times.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu