Destroying Darwinism

Of course none of you has said anything remotely meaningful about the relationship between Darwinism and Social Darwinism in this thread.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Just as you have specifically failed to say anything meaningful about the relationship between religion and religious intolerance and persecution. We're still waiting for you to clear up this apparent double standard.

All we've tried to do, despite your stubbornly ignoring our questions, is point out that your own reasoning, were it sincere and objective, would require you to abandon or at least seriously question your own religion. Since you clearly haven't done this, one can conclude that either:1) you are either completely illogical, or
2) you are using this sorry argument, despite not really believing it, because you just can't think of anything better.

This is also biology Sysamu and as any biologist knows it is a complex and messy sort of science. If you want hard and fast formulas then stick with physics.Your environmental argument seems highly dubious given your previous claims that most populations show effectively no variation, could you try for a bit of consistency?I believe that most populations do contain variation and the point of mainting that variation is so that the populations are not susceptible to either inbreeding or being wiped out suddenly by disease as is common in clonal populations.If these populations are at carrying capacity I would certainly not say they were above it a population can be at other things though especially populations below a lower limit where recessive genetic factors become very obvious. This certainly doesnt show that +/+ relationships exist within a population as you suggest. Obviously heterogeneity is advantageous for a population but the heterogeneity does not neccessarily favour all alleles equally, that would be dependent on natural selection, it also doesnt neccessarily allow expansion beyond the carrying capacity, unless that is it opens up a new environment/niche to be exploited.Look at it in the more common evolutionary way as changes in the frequency of a trait. Assuming a single on/off trait, such as your hypothetical photosynthesis, the proportion of the population displaying that trait can never be more than 100% and the proportions obviously vary in direct relation to each other. The actual numbers of organisms are not as important as the frequency of the trait, in terms of evolutionary genetics.And since you thought up these relationships doesn't it rather fall on your shoulders to show that they exist? Although given your predator/prey, symbiosis terminology +/0 might be termed commensalism. Almost any relatively stable heterogenous population should be a good example of a -/- population, that simply being a representation of competition. The +/- one is harder, can you think of an example? All I can think of off hand is non poisonous forms which mimic poisonous, but these are likely to be from different species.[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 06-11-2003]

Obviously you have much more flexibility when you describe from the point of view of the individual, then if you describe from the point of view of a differential pairing of variants. Nature is complex, that's why the definition of selection needs to be simple, so it has more flexibility to deal with the complex.Also Darwinists have long campaigned to have equal status with physics as a hard science, with some success. You're opinion that it's more soft-science is not shared commonly in biology AFAIK.When I said that populations have no variation, in the context I said to mean that what is observed most all the time is stasis. But talk about inconsistency, your theorizing is based around variants encroaching until extinction. If a variant encroaches untill extinction then obviously it becomes uniform in the population. You insist on variation being present for encroachment and replacement to then destroy, so your requirement for variation is a bit duplicit.Again, the variants help each other not to become extinct. So then they do this by avoiding inbreeding apparently, and by resistance to disease. Like with resistance to malaria, which resistance causes it's own problems, but solves more problems then it creates when faced with malaria.So your argument is then that the heterogenity doesn't favour all variables equally. So what. It's still fundamentally a +/+ relationship. That becomes very clear when it is said that it saves the species from extinction. I don't understand how you can twist this around to effectively say it is -/0 or -/- relationship between the variants. That is fundamentally untrue.Besides on a broader point, are you denying that +/+ relationships exist between variants within populations in Nature whole? That reminds me of Dawkins saying what he calls "real" altruism (not reciprocal) doesn't exist between variations. But since Dawkins writes the way he does, I don't have a clue what Dawkins words mean in terms of plus and minus relationships. It could be he's saying +/- relationships don't exist. It could be he's simply cheating, and saying that +/- relationships don't exist when one of the variants is going extinct. Secretly switching from describing the relationship between variants, to describing the relationship between a variant and the envrionment whole.So are you saying that commensalism doesn't exist in populations also just like symbiosis? What is your argument now actually?Sure I have to prove their existence, since I hypothesize they do exist. I ask around to people who know biology, it's more convenient that way then going out to do fieldwork or scanning literature for it.I guess it is more easy to find +/- relationships among asexually reproducing organisms like bacteria. But with sexually reproducing organisms, what about traits that tend to overuse resources inefficiently for reproduction. The overuse is then a negative to the other variant, and the positive is that after the environment is decimated, there are enough of the modest variants left to save the glutters from extinction. A population of only glutters would destroy the environment and become extinct. This can be stable, I think...Anyway, I feel that a vague reference to the richness of Nature is good enough for this forum. I mean you also before talked about the complexity of nature, so in all this complexity there isn't a +/- relationship?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I never said that biology was a soft science, I simply said that it did not have as many examples of the same sort of clear cut, straightforward apparently universal rules that physics does, Biology is much more contingent than that, mainly as a result of evolution.My requirement for variation is not at all duplicit. Variation is not required for a population to exist, but most natural populations do show variation. Even if variation in one trait is completely wiped out then further variation in that trait can arise through mutation. This is looking at things incredibly simplistically of course, a recessive variant of a gene may be present in a population which all have the one dominant phenotype and therefore no variation in terms of NS.As to the richness of nature, I may not know everything that is out there but then neither do you. It rather devolves to you to show evidence for rather than demanding that I prove the non existence of something. Your hypothetical examples dont really show anything, why should the glutters ever rise to a level where they could deplete the environment if they use their resources inefficiently, they should therefore be at a reproductive disadvantage to the modest variants. You are not showing either the glut trait to be negative to the modest trait, except in as much as the variants compete for resources, nor the modest trait to be beneficial to the glut trait. If you want these hypothetical populations to serve any purpose you need to make your initial assumptions much clearer, if all other things apart from their efficiency in using resources were equal then the glutters would almost certainly die off except perhaps as a recessive trait.You have still to address how your different relationships relate to allele frequency, the usual standard for evolutionary genetics.

quote:

---

I did respond to your frog paper, which you just dumped without any argumentation. Again, if it is shown that small and large have their own niche, then the paper is deceptive IMO

---

Actually as the "niche's" are higher survival vs lower survival based on the variation of size and timing of metamorphasis I would say that it is quite applicable, but then you never really addressed that.

quote:

---

If you're able at theory, abstraction and systemization, then present an example of A's and B's as Natural Selection, in the context of whatever else can happen to A's and B's in regards to reproduction/evolution/selection, why don't you

---

actually your A's and B's are not really appropriate. Here is a much better conceptualization to work with.The mixture of genes generally contributes to the fitness in such a manner as to fit the parameters of a Gaussian curveY=(e^(-x^2/2))/sqrt(2pi)
(sorry for the sloppy appearance of the equation, it did not translate well )Where Y = the fractional frequency within the population and x equals the relative fitness based on the expressed phenotype. This is based on simple population genetics, with the expressed phenotype being based on theinteractions of the entire genome, and can be found in pretty much any good textbook on the subject. Deviations are generally caused by physical walls, a good representation of this can be found in statistics textbooks generally under the example the drunkards walk.Now, Here are two different examples of speciation that I gave you earlier.1) A shifting environment. In the original population the fitness ranges from —1 to 1 with the greatest number of individuals in the population at 0 (ie the mean fitness at time 0 for the original population). Environmental shifts which exceed the mobility of a population can change what the ENVIRONMENT will consider appropriate fitness, in other words a fitness of —0.5 might now be the maximal fitness of a population therefore increasing the reproductive success of individuals with fitness -0.5. Now, a little monkey wrench into this simplified picture so please pay attention. The POPULATION Gaussian curve is made up of smaller Gaussian curves that come from reproductive lines of descent, these cross and mix to a certain degree to maintain species cohesion but can generally be set as gradients within genetic frequencies across geographical areas. Over generations of this type of shift (ie an increase in the subpopulation which had original fitness —0.5) which have their own gaussian distribution based on variations within the genomes can result in a larger shift, say to a relative fitness of —3 to —2.2 relative to the original fitness, but more fit within the new environment. This is a form of Sympatric speciation based on shifting environment.
2) Speciation and replacement. Allopatric speciation occurs when two species become reproductively isolated. Say that the species in location A (now species A) had more individuals that had a fitness of —0.1 while individuals in location B (now species B) had more individuals with fitness 0.3. If after time species B invades the territory of species A, species B might replace species A. Please note that this is based in part on the VARIATION that was shown both within the original species as well as in the daughter species. Shifting environmental conditions towards one fitness or another (say the shift in the environment shifts the optimal fitness towards the original fitness quotient of 0.8) would push species replacement even more.If you want you can look up the basis for the models in most population genetics books. THIS is the real basis for evolution from variation, not your 5 legged sheep.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 06-12-2003]

Phrasing the way the abstract does in the context of Darwinian theory suggests that small frogs become extinct. Extinction is a significant event in terms of preservation, where population increases and decreases don't neccesarily say anything yet about preservation. Perhaps you could make a second paper on exactly the same events titled: Balancing Selection among differently sized frogs. So which would be the true Darwinian description then?I don't understand your example, and I don't have to I think. You're ignoring more fundamental issues about the theory, and going into the complex things that have been built on the fundaments. All I can say is that the wordusage of fitness like you use it seems totally inconsistent with the common meaning of the word from which it is derived.If A's and B's are not really appropiate, then how appropiate are the works of Darwin by the same standards? Very inappropiate it seems, they are about a lightyear removed from anything as structured as Gaussian formula's.Mendel had A's and B's as variants and put them in a neat and clear formulation. I don't see any fundamental difference between Darwinism and Mendellism that you can't, as the fundaments, have that sort of explanation of Darwinism as well. Gaussian formula's doesn't seem to me to be near the fundaments of Darwinism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Of course it is a bit duplicit to insist on variation to be there, and at the same time have it be destroyed. It basicly says Natural Selection is limited by it's influence by other things like the mutationrate. Would Natural Selection still apply if black moths produced white moths?I already showed evidence with the environmentalist example of variation being required to be there to save the species from extincton. Notice that they typify variation generally as having a symbiotic quality. They are not saying like it is an exception for variation to have a symbiotic quality. I still have no clue what your arguments against this example is. You seem to have turned it around by saying something like symbiosis is actually based on competition, but that is just plain deception as far as I can tell.The inefficiency of the glutters compensates for any increase in reproductive rate that might result from using more resources, so that they still can have equal reproduction. You said that was important, so I just put the equality in there, just in case. It doesn't seem to me that it's neccessary actually, because they can also have separate niches. The total net relation should be positive, so it doesn't matter if modest inhibit the reproduction of glutters a little, since the total of the relationship is still that they contribute to the glutters reproduction.I ignore the allelle frequencies because I don't see the point. I woulf first talk about the real number of a variant, that is more fundamental.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

If you dont think that allele frequncy is fundamental to evolution then you obviously have no idea of any evolutionary concepts produced since the 'rediscovery' of Mendel's work and the formulation of neo-darwinian theory.Of course in a homogenetic population natural selection would be limited by the mutation rate, if all the members of the population are genetically identical then what is there to select for?A black population could give arise to white moths if the white trait was recessive and NS could then act on that white moth.If your glutters and modest users have seperate niches then what resources are they supposed to be competing for and how do they constitute one population? Do you understand the concept of a niche? So the glutters have an increased reproductive rate to compensate for their extra resource uptake, a point that it might have been useful to mention when you first made this example. To be a useful thought experiment these populations should only vary in one trait, all other factors should be equal surely since it is the effect of the variation in that one trait we are examining.Please give me a reference for an environmental group claiming that variation is beneficial to declining populations of endagered animals because different variants of alleles have a symbiotic relationship. It is much more likely that they say it is important, as I did, because otherwise the populations will be susceptible to problems associated with inbreeding and also more susceptible to all being struck by one disease.

quote:

---

Would Natural Selection still apply if black moths produced white moths?

---

The way I view it, yes.Natural selection acts upon the current population such that
those less suited to the enviroment are less likely to survive
and leave offspring.If the traits are not heritable this process will not have a significant effect on future generations.

quote:

---

I ignore the allelle frequencies because I don't see the point. I woulf first talk about the real number of a variant, that is more fundamental.

---

In what way do you see allele frequency and trait frequency
differing?

quote:

---

Phrasing the way the abstract does in the context of Darwinian theory suggests that small frogs become extinct.

---

Actually they don’t. And please try to use the term extinction properly, a trait does not become extinct, a species does.

quote:

---

Extinction is a significant event in terms of preservation, where population increases and decreases don't neccesarily say anything yet about preservation.

---

Wrong again, increases in the number of individuals of reproductive agesays something quite positive about survival an indication against extinction for that and probably a few generations at least.
Here is one of the most telling comments that you have made to date.

quote:

---

I don't understand your example, and I don't have to I think.

---

I think that this says it all, you do not understand an example based on BASIC biology and genetics and yet you are the preeminent theorist of natural selection on this board .

quote:

---

You're ignoring more fundamental issues about the theory, and going into the complex things that have been built on the fundaments. All I can say is that the word usage of fitness like you use it seems totally inconsistent with the common meaning of the word from which it is derived.

---

Actually I am going straight to the basis of the theory, organismsvary across the species population and Natural Selection deals with this variation. And I am using the fundamentals of the theory in a far more appropriate manner than your miss-attempts with a grossly simplified form. As to the use of the term fitness, you are obviously not familiar with the literature as it is a standard usage.

quote:

---

If A's and B's are not really appropiate, then how appropiate are the works of Darwin by the same standards? Very inappropiate it seems, they are about a lightyear removed from anything as structured as Gaussian formula's.

---

So, what is it about single traits vs the combination of all traits that defines an individuals fitness that you do not understand Syamsu? I am sure that there are many on this board who would be willing to help you in this regard. A’s and B’s are appropriate when discussing single traits, fitness w.r.t. selection is another matter. It relies on the combination of traits. And for many genes the phenotypic traits are not a simple A or a but can be an intermediate aA or even an alpha due to interference or other phenotypic modification from B.

quote:

---

Mendel had A's and B's as variants and put them in a neat and clear formulation. I don't see any fundamental difference between Darwinism and Mendellism that you can't, as the fundaments, have that sort of explanation of Darwinism as well. Gaussian formula's doesn't seem to me to be near the fundaments of Darwinism.

---

That is because you really do not understand much about biology or genetics. As I have stated earlier Mendel chose a very simple system, and he only looked at small parts of the system. And even in that system the representation of the frequency of the genes for the peas is a gaussian curve, although rather blocky. AA would be at one end, aa at the other and Aa the high point in the middle. Now put together ALL of the genes and you get a similar frequency plot and when you plot out phenotypes you get something similar and when you plot out fitness based on the phenotype which is based on the genotype you get my example. It fits the fundamentals perfectly, assuming that you truly understand the fundamentals.Are you beginning to understand yet?------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

But I'm not denying that the way variation prevents extinction is by providing resistance to several diseases, or to prevent inbreeding. I'm just saying that is still symbiosis of one variant to another variant.We're examining similar relationships to Natural Selection, and if they exist, and if they are on an equal footing with Natural Selection theory in the structure of knowledge, like "Natural Symbiosis". Of course it would help to know what Natural Selection actually says about the relationships between variants and environment whole in terms of reproduction. That is not clear to me now. Note that several biologists have told me that Natural Selection says nothing about the relationship between variants in terms of reproduction. They said the variants need not influence each other's rate of reproduction at all, for Natural Selection to apply, that competition is not required for Natural Selection to apply.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Will you please NAME these "biologists"? or is that proprietary in the sense that Lewontin did not blush in using a PseudoNHIM when writing to the Times Book Review?of NY??? Sure one can take Eddintion's PHILOSOPHY but who are the BIOLOGISTS?