Destroying Darwinism

The person who includes is the person responsible for providing a justification, that's the way science works. I don't have to give a justification for excluding it actually.As a Darwinist you should point to another balloon floating higher then compare them, and say that flying lower then the other balloon is a property of the balloon in question. There has to be a point in the comparing, a consequence to the difference in heights by which the balloons are related. With different rates of reproduction there is either the consequence of encroachment, as by Darwin, or otherwise there is none, and no reason to compare.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Go ahead, investigate it. While you're at it, investigate Catholicism for supporting the Spanish Inquisition, investigate Protestantism for racism in this country and their connection to the KKK, and investigate Islam for their connection to suicide bombings, anti-women actions, and various other tradgedies.Or, don't you believe that religion is responsible for the acts committed in its name? If not, you have a double standard. This point has been continually raised to you in this thread, and you have ignored it. If you wish to debate in good faith I suggest you address it. Otherwise, withdraw from the thread - what's the point in talking to you?

How could they go extinct and not decrease? If they go extinct, that means there's zero of them. That would represent a decrease from their original population.Your logic leaves much to be desired. Your numbers don't make sense. Your thought experiment suggests you didn't think it through.

You know what, since you want to play numbers games, I'll play too. Here's some numbers I can come up with through a simple model of carrying capacity and predation.First start with 50 black moths, 50 white moths, and trees that are evenly black and white. Now, for simplicity's sake, we'll say that at the end of each generation, every moth reproduces itself twice over and then dies (of predation, disease, old age, whatever). We'll say that the environment they live in has a carrying capacity of 100 moths. So, for every moth in the population, two are going to die before the end of the generation. Our population of 100 produces 200 offspring, of which half plus the parents die, leaving 100 again.Ok, so the population by generation looks something like this for the first couple of generations:1st: 50b/50w
2nd: 50b/50wetc. Now, human industrial pollution makes all the trees black - white moths are at such a disadvantage that they experience 10% more predation.Right before the moths reproduce for the third generation it looks like this:2.25th: 50b/45wNow, after they reproduce, and before they die, it looks like this:2.50th: 150b/135wAnd now, the deaths - first, remove the parents:2.75th: 100b/90wNow the deaths from starvation due to overcrowding, leaving us with the third generation total:3rd: 53b/47wI did that step explicitly so you could see the math. As we continue:4th: 55b/45w
5th: 58b/42w
6th: 60b/40w
7th: 65b/35w
8th: 68b/32wNow this is a simple model that assumes much; for instance that the rate of predation of white moths is a percentage and not a constant. Also that they reproduce through parthenogenesis. Nonetheless it is an accurate, albiet simplified, model of natural selection. According to my spreadsheet the white moths go extinct sometime in the 40th-50th generation.I don't know what this is supposed to demonstrate beyond the fact that you simply don't know any biology if you thought your numbers represented an accurate mental model of population. For your numbers to have any meaning at all you have to explain how you arrived at them. As far as I could tell you made all your numbers up. I calculated mine from my inital assumptions. If you find any of my assumptions above invalid, please do point that out and I will try to justify them.

Again the mistake is that you don't conceive of the relation of the variant to the other variant, and the relation of the variant to the tree as essentially separate selective relationships. After the white moths are extinct your theory of Natural Selection ceases to apply to wingcolor because there is no more variation.I'll note that Peter, and Tazimus Maximus wrongly stated that there is no competitive encroachment with the moths. You acknowledge competitive encroachment, but then you fail to really ackowledge the effect Peter and Tazimus Maximus note. You are all wrong, but differently. It seems to me I understand Natural Selection better then the lot of you.As to your other post, should we also not investigate Nazism in relation to the holocaust? Your simplistic "arguments" are as stupid as can be.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Natural selection isn't a theory. It's an explanation of a trend - in this case, the explanation for the trend of the white moths to decrease in response to poor cover on trees. I've explained this over and over but it doesn't seem to sink in.Anyway, natural selection stops applying when there's nothing to select for. When there's no variation in wing color there's no way to select for wing color, because there's no choice. Does that surprise you or seem unreasonable? It doesn't to me. Or, alternatively, Peter and Taz know something I don't, but you know even less than I do. That appears the most likely to me in the face of your ridiculous "thought experiment". I doubt you even comprehended my model. Sure, we should. If we determine that the actions of the holocaust were not contrary to the spirit of Nazism, then we can decry Nazism for being evil. Most people would argue that the Spanish Inquisition was not in the true spirit of Christianity. Similarly we argue that racism and racist acts are not in the spirit of science and stem from ignorance and misunderstanding of science.But anyway, you didn't address the religion issue except to call me stupid so it's time for you to withdraw from the topic. You've lost whatever credibility as a debater you thought you had. I'll expect and respond to no further posts from you in this thread.

The white and black moths each have their own niche, besides that the white moths are a selective pressure on the black moths and vice versa. Just like here in Indonesia there are lots of different colored butterflies which are selective pressures on each other, but they also have their own niche so that they not become one uniform color. That's called balancing selection in selection theory, however that they devised a name for it doesn't mean that it logically fits in the theory. If you go looking for scenario's that don't fit the theory, which you must because that is in the spirit of science, then you can imagine things like populations splitting into separate populations in separate environments, according to the differing trait, so then there is zero selection pressure of one on the other.Nobelprizewinner Konrad Lorenz was ignorant and misunderstanding of science? Maybe he was but then so are you. You don't seem to understand the rules for systemizing knowledge efficiently. For the white moths:- the negative selection due to predatory birds grew, and (the bird eats the moth)
- the negative selection due to the competing black moths grew. (the black moth eats the food the white moth would otherwise have gotten)You insist on encroachment for selection to apply, so then the last is part of your logic, but not the first. That becomes very clear when you simply not apply the theory when there are no variants. Anyway structurally another variant is just another selective factor, just as the predatory birds are. You have no justification for only applying your theory to the one selective factor (a variant) but not all the other selective factors.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 06-08-2003]

Could you reexplain this for me? I don't understand.I think the justification for applying selection to the white/black was to demonstrate the effect of it. It was a simplifed example not intending to take all things into consideration.If you saying selection should be applied to things that don't exhibit variation then I can't understand what kind of logic you're using.

The subject of interest in Natural Selection is preservation as by the title of Origin, preservation of favoured races through Natural Selection.Q How are races preserved according to Darwin?
A Through encroaching on races that have a lower chance of reproduction.Q How are races actually preserved?
A Through reproductionThere is no need for encroachment to take place for preservation to occur. That is the fault Darwin is making, as I argue. Negative selective factors are then relations to the environment which stop an organism from reproducing, and positive selective factors are relations to the environment which help an organism to reproduce. The logic is then almost the same as normal Darwinism. When trees turn from white to black, then white moths will be selected against more by the birds, and also will be selected against more by the black moths, *if* there happen to be black moths in the population.In the Malthusian Darwinism a uniformly white moth population would fall outside the scope of the theory. The theory would cease to apply once uniformity is reached.There are lots of problems with comparing the way Darwin does, for instance we can say that a variant has a higher reproductionrate then another variant, but that both variants are still driving towards extinction. So it is not true that having a higher rate of reproduction then the other, being a favored race, will automatically lead to preservation. When the reproductionrate for one variant is 0.5 and the other variant is 0.25 then both variants will be driven towards extinction, eventhough the one has twice the chance of reproduction the other has. etc.etc. many more problems with comparingregards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

SyamsuI don't agree with your first pair of Q and A's. I don't see the difference between them as being significant. How is "Through encroaching on races that have a lower chance of reproduction.
" not "through reproduction" ... and all the rest.Is anyone arguing with this? so what?

Well actually you didn't understand how selection applies without variation. So at least the difference is significant enough for you to not understand it at first.By my experience, I'm afraid you would argue against changing the standard definition tooth and nail, wife and family, tv and couch, and for no reason whatsoever. Just as in this post you give no reason whatsoever to oppose it, yet somehow this doesn't result in changing your position. So I guess you should inquire to yourself why you oppose changing the definition this way so fiercely.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 06-09-2003]

Ok, now maybe I'm beginning to get something out of the murk.Changing the standard definition? definition of what?Please supply the "standard definition" and you new one and the justification for trying to do this rather than inventing a new word.Is it natural selection you're talking about?Is the standard definition that out of a population some individuals are more successful at passing on genetic traits than others because of selective pressures on them?

You suggest that a process can select indivduals that don't have a variation between them? Is that what you're trying to say?If that is the case can you explain more clearly how this could be?

And, could you try again to explain very clearly what the distinctions between the A's above are?

quote:

---

The person who includes is the person responsible for providing a justification, that's the way science works. I don't have to give a justification for excluding it actually.

---

Several people have provided such ... your responses have been
incoherent or evasive.My question was raised to help illuminate the problem that
you have. If you cannot illuminate the problem perhaps it
doesn't exist.

quote:

---

There has to be a point in the comparing, a consequence to the difference in heights by which the balloons are
related. With different rates of reproduction there is either the consequence of encroachment, as by Darwin, or otherwise there is none, and no reason to compare.

---

The 'encroachment' to which you refer must surely relate to
inter-species dynamics. Given two species that occupy the
same ecological niche in the same location, the one that
fills the needs of that niche best will become the most common
over time.In a way that is natural selection, but typically NS is focussed
on intra-species dynamics.The consequence of natural selection is evolution towards forms
that best fit the prevailing environment.IF your objection is that the comparison doesn't have any
consequence then I think you are not allowing yourself to
consider the implications fully.