Destroying Darwinism

I basicly included all the justifications you have given for including variation in post 1. You should have simply not replied, since you didn't provide anything new.Next time... I will simply refer to the authority of Darwin, and will give as the justification for including variation Darwin's encroachment until extinction, as in the opening of Descent of Man, and the Malthus part in Origin of Species.C.Darwin Descent of Man
"The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals."the logic of Darwinists:
increase at rapid rate....struggle for existence....beneficial preserved....injurous eliminated...encroach and replace....become extinct.That is the justification for including variation in the standard definition of Natural Selection, and it works, in part.Now simply don't respond to this, since you have no new logic to add.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Ah you're just another bulldog for Darwin, defending tooth and nail. That is the reason you don't bother to engage the imaginary experiment.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Nothing of that sort. Holocaust teaching and teaching about WWII was very pervasive when I grew up. Even the smallest details are discussed endlessly, and Darwinism is a lot more then a small detail in relation to Nazism. It does make me angry sometimes that Darwinists commonly do not wish to see any serious investigation of the relationship of Darwinism to Nazism, and most times disparrage such investigation.There is fairly obvious evidence of such links, like that the Hitleryouth were taught Darwinism in Hitler-schools that instituted the Darwinist inspired principle of "continuous selection". Hitler schools existed separate from the regular school system. AFAIK pupils weren't taught about gravity theory there, but they were taught Darwinism as part of their ideological indoctrination. Scattered references to Natural Selection by top Nazi's, like in the Wannsee protocol (the minutes from the meeting where the practicalities of organizing the holocaust were discussed), and Hitler's book, and his recorded conversation, Haeckel, Galton and Darwin's position in the history of racism etc. You can read much about the relationship of Darwinism to Nazism in Klaus Fischer's historybook about Nazigermany.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

What is not to understand? +50 means the population grows by 50. Or you can also disregard the number 50 if that would make a problem, and just note that it has a contributory effect on reproduction. The populationsize is left unknown so you can theorize that maybe the white moths went extinct by decreasing, or maybe they didn't.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Evolutionary biology is full of just-so stories to fill the gaps where data is missing, and besides that they're continuously playing theoretical what if games.Anyway the point in the example is that encroachment is just another selective factor among many. You therefore can't include it in the basic definition of selection, as the rules of proper organizing of knowledge demand. So you have lost your justification for including variation in the definition.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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

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

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]

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

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]

By the standard definition I generally mean those definitions of Natural Selection that are based around a variational pairing for it to apply, such as white and black moths. I would have the theory apply individually, and not require a variational pairing for selection to apply.Again, it's on you to provide a justification for including variation, not for me to give a justification for excluding it. I mean when I'm trying to give a reason for excluding variation, all I'm doing is trying to find a justification for including it, but coming up empty. So really you have to provide the justification since you support it's use. That is how it is generally done in science. There is no justification for including variation however, we've been through that on this tread.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well really I already said in the most simple terms. Selecting against means a relation between the organism and the environment which makes reproduction less likely, selecting for means reproduction more likely. I don't see how you can not understand that, but still understand Natural Selection in it's common definition.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The difference is that you can have reproduction without encroaching.I'm sorry, what would you say a copymachine does? The copymachine encroaches on blank pages, making the blank pages go extinct? I don't understand how you can't, or have any difficulty at all in seeing the difference.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well you say they are similarly fit, but in standard theory fitness is a relative term, relative to another variant, and it doesn't apply to traits that are not differentially varying in the population. You make it sound as though uniformity within a population doesn't occur much, but actually it's quite common of course.There is variation in a population of both black and white, but that variation exists is not a sufficient reason for including it in the definition. You can apply a cutdown theory of selection twice, one time for each variant, in stead of applyin the differential variation version once.If you apply the cutdown theory twice, then white moths may show up as an overall negative selective factor on black moths, and black moths may show up as a negative selective factor on white moths.The selection is between reproduction or no reproduction, or between preservation or extinction, of the one. It's not one or the other, as it also isn't in Nature one or the other. There are both black and white moths still AFAIK, there are many colors of butterflies in Indonesia etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It's not the point if a population is clonal or not. To talk about a clonal population is just a convenient way to theorize about how to describe without using reference to variation. It can be applied in populations where there is variation as well, of course.You would simply do the same as in standard Natural Selection, measure reproductive rate of the one, and measure reproductive rate of the other, but you would not compare the results. You will then have applied the cutdown theory of Natural Selection twice, one time for each variant.A variant may split of from it's ancestral population through it's differing trait.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu