Destroying Darwinism

quote:

---

Natural Selection also applies to asexually reproducing creatures, so mating basicly has nothing to do with selection.

---

Wow. I had no idea it was that simple. And so totally illogical.Selection acts on all characteristics that affect survival to, and success in, reproduction. Besides, I recall that you recently attempted to remove everything *except* mating from the relevant factors in natural selection. You are all over the map and can't seem to make up your mind.

quote:

---

Population is the key? It's strange that you would say this after modern Darwinists have absolutely insisted that selection is about the individual, and not about the group.

---

Absolutely, you say. So mutations take place in whole populations simultaneously, and reproduction is not carried out by individuals? If you can show me where "modern Darwinists have absolutely insisted" that, I'll go sign up for some classes at ICR. Scout's honor.

quote:

---

Strange that you insist on a group for selection again, that the population is "the key". Of course "the key" is really the relationship of an organims to it's environment, in view of it's chance of reproduction.

---

You know what would be a good idea? If you actually presented evidence for your own theory of how the current diversity of life appeared, instead of mounting these convoluted attempts to "destroy Darwinism" by defining some common scientific terms right out of existence.[This message has been edited by zephyr, 06-04-2003][This message has been edited by zephyr, 06-04-2003]

Because the trait ratio isn't changing. In a population of 100% white moths, no matter how many you kill off, the population that survives is still 100% white moths.Did you miss the part where I talked about changing trait ratios? It's going to be hard to argue with you if you don't read what I'm writing. You know, except for the fact that sexually reproducing organisms usually select their mates.Surviving to reproduce is what natural selection is about. That applies to asexual and sexual organisms. generally, sexual reproduction confers disease resistance (as well as other beneficial advantages) on a population, which is why you see so many organisms that reproduce sexually. I'm not familiar with any modern "Darwinists" that reject the importance of population genetics. If anything that's been the major breakthrough in modern evolutionary theory - the synthesis of population studies with evolutionary thought. So I think you're just wrong about this. But I could be in error.

You don't seem to understand the basic question that natural selection answers. That question is, essentially: "Why do some traits spread through a population from a few individuals over sucessive generations while others do not?"The answer is natural selection. If the trait is advantageous, more of that individual's progeny survive than the progeny of individuals without that trait. Over time that individual's progeny constitute the bulk of the population of that species. This is a trend, not a rule, of course. It's not deterministic. But it is a very real trend.If you can't see why that's a useful explanation in terms of explaining why organisms are adapted to their environments, then you're blind to science or something. If you still can't see it after it's been made this obvious then you're blinded by your own ideological agenda or something.

quote:

---

If you can't see why that's a useful explanation in terms of explaining why organisms are adapted to their environments, then you're blind to science or something.

---

Not to mention math. Trying to mock differential success ("this building and that building") when resources are nearly always limited does not imply much understanding of selection. A variation that even gives a tiny percentage more likelihood of producing viable offspring will, in time, spread throughout the population.

quote:

---

There is no unreality, since the variation is irrellevant most all the time. Most biology books ignore variation within populations, are they unreal too?

---

Can you cite me a biology book which, in the discussion of evolution, does not mention variation. The only thing which I am finding unreal here is either: 1) your lack of understanding as to how ignorant of biology you truly are, or 2) a willful ignorance or a willful attempt at deception. I have not figured out which yet although I suspect a phenotypic style blending of traits.

quote:

---

Neither you or Peter have given a justification for including variation in the definition of NS beyond saying that variation exists. I exist, should I also be in the definition of Natural Selection then?

---

Actually I have given you several. Here is one

quote:

---

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.

---

taken from my No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=15&t=74&m=37#37post here which you then misrepresent with multiple statements like this

quote:

---

You can make it look more interesting by saying a large frog reproduces more then a small frog, but it's structurally still the same.

---

I actually said several things. One, frogs which are larger at metamorphosis have a higher rate of survival to sexual maturity (from the paper cited above). I also cited two other studies where sexual selection put the brakes on run away larger growth w.r.t. sexual dimorphism and overall size (females preferring males 80% of their size) while natural selectiontended towards larger growth (better mating song and the ability to displace rivals). Here is another example of variation and opposing natural and sexual selection for you to attempt to misstate and misrepresent.Sex, death and genetic variation: natural and
sexual selection on cricket song
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B (1999) 266, 707^709
David A. Gray* and William H. CadeMale eld crickets, Gryllus integer, in Texas, USA, produce a trilled calling song that attracts female crickets, resulting in enhanced mating success. Gravid female parasitoid ies, Ormia ochracea, are also attracted to male cricket calling song, resulting in the death of the male within about seven days. Using playbacks of eld-cricket calling song in the natural habitat, we show that both female crickets and female parasitoid ies prefer male calling song with average numbers of pulses per trill. Thus female crickets exert stabilizing sexual selection, whereas ies exert disruptive natural selection on male song. Disruptive natural selection will promote genetic variation and population divergence. Stabilizing sexual selection will reduce genetic variation and maintain population cohesiveness. These forces may balance and together maintain the observed high levels of genetic variation (ca. 40%) in male calling song.Songs in insects are genetically determined as has been demonstrated by work on Drosophilia and the movable PAR element.Here are two more examples of variation and the role in evolution for you to chew onPATTERNS OF PARAPATRIC SPECIATION
Evolution, 54(4), 2000, pp. 1126—1134
SERGEY GAVRILETS,1,2,3 HAI LI,4 AND MICHAEL D. VOSE4Abstract. Geographic variation may ultimately lead to the splitting of a subdivided population into reproductively isolated units in spite of migration. Here, we consider how the waiting time until the first split and its location depend on different evolutionary factors including mutation, migration, random genetic drift, genetic architecture, and the geometric structure of the habitat. We perform large-scale, individual-based simulations using a simple model of reproductive isolation based on a classical view that reproductive isolation evolves as a by-product of genetic divergence.
We show that rapid parapatric speciation on the time scale of a few hundred to a few thousand generations is plausible even when neighboring subpopulations exchange several individuals each generation. Divergent selection for local adaptation is not required for rapid speciation. Our results substantiates the claims that species with smaller range sizes (which are characterized by smaller local densities and reduced dispersal ability) should have higher speciation rates. If mutation rate is small, local abundances are low, or substantial genetic changes are required for
reproductive isolation, then central populations should be the place where most splits take place. With high mutation rates, high local densities, or with moderate genetic changes sufficient for reproductive isolation, speciation events are expected to involve mainly peripheral populations.Dynamics of clade diversication on the morphological hypercube
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B (1999) 266, 817^824
Sergey GavriletsUnderstanding the relationship between taxonomic and morphological changes is important in identifying the reasons for accelerated morphological diversication early in the history of animal phyla. Here, a simple general model describing the joint dynamics of taxonomic diversity and morphological disparity is presented and applied to the data on the diversication of blastozoans. I show that the observed patterns of deceleration in clade diversication can be explicable in terms of the geometric structure of the morphospace and the eects of extinction and speciation on morphological disparity without invoking major declines in the size of morphological transitions or taxonomic turnover rates. The model allows testing of hypotheses about patterns of diversication and estimation of rates of morphological evolution In the case of blastozoans, I nd no evidence that major changes in evolutionary rates and mechanisms are responsible for the deceleration of morphological diversication seen during the period of this clade's expansion. At the same time, there is evidence for a moderate decline in overall rates of morphological diversication concordant with a major change (from positive to negative values) in the clade's growth rate.

quote:

---

You give a good show

---

You don’t, unless you are TRYING to be comedic.

quote:

---

Frogs reproduce more then elephants. That's your theory really.

---

Ph man, this is too much, have you ever heard of K and R breeding strategies. Syamsu, you are merely showing your ignorance again. Tell me, how do frogs and elephants compete, what is their ecological link that would mean that many frogs will mean lower reproductive and environmental success for elephants? Keep yapping Syamsu, you only make your position weaker everytime that you type, of course maybe ONE of these days you could add real world examples, or even a theoretical example with good underpinnings in reality and not just a somewhere over the rainbow there must be a species with no variability and unlimited resources.Here is a hint Syamsu, the place is called Oz.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

But it's deceptive to talk about a trait spreading through a population like that, because it implicitly assumes that the size of the population is stable. The black moths are spreading yes, but are they spreading throughout the population? I don't think so, they are only spreading throughout the population when they replace the organisms that don't have the trait in competition. I think this should be clear if you would consider what happened if you had only white moths and made the trees black, and if you had only black moths and turned the trees black. You would observe population decrease, and population increase, and this is basicly what happens also in the normal moth example.It's also not what Natural Selection was originally about. As before, Natural Selection was about persistence, about a stable reproductioncycle, about preservation. A new trait would be preserved if it contributed to it's reproduction in it's relation to the environment.So then tell me why it is meaningful to say that elephants reproduce more then frogs? Or why isn't it meaningful.I mean if comparing reproductionrates has so much importance, then why would this comparing not be important as well?The answer of course is, that the comparison in Natural Selection of variants in the same population *sharing* an environment implies replacement/encroachment of one on the other, like Darwin said. Otherwise it's basicly much meaningless.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I gave a real world example, sort of, the moths. An example that everybody knows, so everybody can easily participate in discussing. By dumping sciencepapers without argumentation, you are merely showing you can't argue theory very well. And then your actual argumentation is with so much emotionality that it doesn't facillitate inquiry very well.Dr Tazimus Maximus
"Tell me, how do frogs and elephants compete, what is their ecological link that would mean that many frogs will mean lower reproductive and environmental success for elephants? "Now you are talking about replacement again, where before you were just talking about comparison. As in the other post to Crashfrog, you need to imagine what would happen if there were only white moths, and only black moths. The number of white moths would go down much regardless of there being black moths. The number of black moths would increase much regardless of there being white moths. So you see, in the moths example there basicly isn't competition either. There is not much consequence to white and black moths being in the same population, since the same thing happens if the one or other variant were absent. The increase in black moths is for some part unrelated to the decrease in white moths.So since you emotionally insist on competitive replacement for selection, the famous example of the moths largely falls outside your definition of Natural Selection.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Actually you have constantly screwed up the moths by
1) Placing false and erroneous restrictions on the example (the way that you segregate the two phenotypic varients) and
2) By completely misunderstanding, misstating and totally bolloxing up the concept of shifting allelic frequencies.Survival is not just, and regardless of your ignorant statements never claimed by me to be, competition between two varients for the same resources. It also can entale differential survivability based on interaction with the environment (which is what the moth example REALLY is, the birs are part of the environment as well child). As to the frogs, I was drawing from your rather ignorant statement; and that does not really entale replacement either although interaction between different species COULD lead to extinction of one or the other, but that is not replacement unless there is speciation or species splitting involved. Pity that you do not know enough to understand the terms that you attempt to throw about. And actually it is more irritation with your dishonorable attempts at deception then any extreme emotion. Your poor attempts at logic (have you figured out the linkage between building heights) and worse levels of understanding concerning reading (did you realize that one of the citations I provided dealt with morphological maps so that you could understand the analogy with topological maps of gravity gradients) make your posts a series of intellectualy poor jokes. Child, before you argue biology and/or biochemistry please try to learn some.Come Syamsu, let us all in on your lack on knowledge, what are K and R strategies re: biology and how are they relevant to the statements that I made earlier? You want to argue theory boy, then I am going to highlight your lack of knowledge even more.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

To some extent, that's generally true. Environments have a certain carrying capacity, and a population of any significant age will have reached that capacity because populations grow exponentially. This is grade-school biology, here. it isn't meaningful because it isn't true. Frogs reproduce way more than elephants. Another reason is, they don't inhabit the same niche, so they don't compete with each other. More frongs doesn't mean less elephants.But more black moths means less white moths, because they compete against each other for food and mates. They're in the same niche because they're the same species. Duh.I simply don't understand your arguments. Do you think frogs and elephants compete against each other for food and mates?

quote:

---

I simply don't understand your arguments. Do you think frogs and elephants compete against each other for food and mates?

---

It is a strawman, although whether from a deliberate attempt at deceit or from ignorance I can not tell. He, Syamsu, is essentially discussing R vs K reproductive strategies and claiming that they cross demes and niches. Not that I think that he will understand a word of what I just typed. And I make that statement due to the fact that Syamsu appears to be a creationist, TB if he reads this will likely get the references, rather it is that Syamsu just appears to be ignorant of most of basic biology and its concepts.I think that this thread needs a fork stuck in it, it's done. Syamsu has once again had his ignorant head handed to him. No loss there.Hey Syamsu. If you ever really want to discuss theory start a thread where you intend to answer the questions put to you. I like digging into the weak points of NS, although probably for a reason different than you. Otherwise,... please do not bother, you would just be wasting my time.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Crashfrog:
"But more black moths means less white moths, because they compete against each other for food and mates. They're in the same niche because they're the same species. Duh."As before this is simply false. You cut away my explanation why this is false. Again, the decrease of the white moths is to some extent unrelated to the increase in black moths. This is because the decrease of the white moths is due to loss of cover on white trees.White moths would lose cover regardless of there being black moths in the population or not. It essentially has nothing to do with there being black moths in the population, much as you wish to say it does.To state it even more obvious:You say "more black moths means less white moths"What you should have said was:Loss of cover from white trees means less white moths.The science is simply wrong, which is very sad for a 150 years old widely accepted theory.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It seems you're talking now about there being several different definitions for Natural Selection. One only comparing, and the other one comparing and replacing.Every time the weakness of just comparing is shown, then you shift to talking about competitive replacement, and then when this weakness is forgotten about, then you shift back to just comparing. That is your deception, probably you're also deceiving yourself.The definitions of words like replacement, fitness etc. are suited to the standard definition of Natural Selection. Everybody knows what I mean what I say when I talk about replacement, and I explicitely state what I mean by replacement so there can be no misunderstanding. Besides, the definitions Darwinists use are commonly nonsensical.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Why would I have said something I didn't mean?What I meant to point out is that, for a population at carrying capacity, an increase in one subgroup of that populations means that there has been a corresponding decrease in the othr groups.So, loss of white tree cover means less white moths, sure - but it also means an increase in whatever moths aren't white - the black ones in this case. The loss of white moths means more "room" for black ones.I'd say that means the survival of the black moths is related to the white moths, wouldn't you? I simply don't understand from what authority you make statements like this. I find it very hard to believe indeed that somehow, unbeknownst to the vast scientific community, you are right and they are wrong.

Population increase of black moths = extra reproduction due to cover + competitive advantage over white mothsTrees changing from white to black.scenario with only black moths
black moths +50scenario with only white moths
white moths -50scenario with black and white moths
black moths +100
white moths -100so then 50 extra black due to competitive replacement, and 50 extra black due to black coverThe main thing should be the relation of the organism to the environment in regards to the event of reproduction. That covers both competitive replacement and the camouflage. You make the main thing the relation between variants. A relation that doesn't actually neccesarily exist, just as the relation between frogs and elephants doesn't exist.Again, it's clearly deception to say the survival of the white moths is related to the black moths, for a large part. The survival of the white moths is mostly related to white trees, that is the meaningful knowledge here. Your argument has reached a dead end, you should discard it.Of course I make those statements that the theory is wrong based on my argument. You don't actually seem to have any argument. In post 1 I talk about why it is more easily credible that the theory of Natural Selection is wrong, then with other established science theories. Besides I wouldn't be surprised if I wasn't the only one making the argument, and that there are Darwinists who simply accept the theory as weak in the way I argued.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

In reference to the peppered moths:::Natural selection is used to explain why there are more
black than white when the trees and buildings are covered
in black/dark soot.The survival rate of white moths and black moths is related
to the same environmental factor.They are all part of the same population and do not compete
with one another in respect of this environmental relationship.When the trees are black the white ones are easier for birds
to see, and so get eaten more often than black ones, which are
harder to see.I have always failed to see what your actual objection is, to the
extent that I don't think you actually have an objection
beyond trying hard not to accept that evolution happens.Your focus on reproduction events ignores the effects of
individuals dying before sexual maturity.Your focus on individuals neglects the populational effect
that natural selection is an explanation of.Your neglect/mis-understanding of variation is unrealistic.