Destroying Darwinism

Are we on the merry-go-round again!
I stand by my replies in 213 and 219. the passage that you quoted talks about variation in phenotype but no variation in genotype, hence heritability of zero.

I am going to "duck' duck goose Out of this thread because I, BSM, doubt the actually thinking with BOTH phenotypes and genotypes for an absolute thought that would have potentially answered the same. My guess is that molecular discussions have broadend the type of statistics that are needed for any view to take the cake but elaborating either the symbols of segegation or substantial numerical taxonomy in terms of the clinamen implict deviantly would be circularly difficult as has been percieved inter alia herein.

As long as you don't ever chicken out, Brad.

Jacques Lacan would have loved a patient like you!

On reading it again I thought I was wrong, but then I read it another time, and really according to Darwinspeak, the heritability of your father's arm is zero, eventhough I guess you have an arm."Heritability is the proportion of variance in a phenotypic trait that is accounted for by genetic variance."Q So what proportion of the variance in arms is accounted for by genetic variance?A Generally..... all arms are genetically the same, so the proportion is zero.Consequently heritability of arms is zero.You stand by a common sense interpretation of heritiability, not by a Darwinist interpretation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The talk about variation/gradualism stands in denial of simple Mendellism that units of heridity are discrete entities. Discrete entitities which require an individual, non-comparitive approach. The variation/gradualist hypothesis was founded on, or reinforced by the faulty theory of blended inheritance, which facillitated the comparitive approach. This explains why Darwinists opposed Mendellism for up to 72 years. I mean would anyone oppose Mendellism if they thought that genes were discrete entitities? I don't think so.So you see, much damage has already been done for entering variation into the definition of Darwinism. 72 years of ignorance, and a character-assassination of Mendel, as if he was somehow to blame for the non-acceptance of his theory.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Once again Syamsu, are you familiar with any evolutionary theory subsequent to Watson and Crick? You don't seem to be. Quite what you think differing Mendelian alleles are, if not variants of genes, I dont know.Here is an article at 'The Scientist' which describes two of the mutations linked to the traits Mendel observed in his peas. The wrinkled (rr) phenotype is caused by an insertion in a starch branching enzyme leading to an inactive isoform. How is this mutated form not a variant of the functional gene?http://www.the-scientist.com/...jul/palevitz_p20_020708.html[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 06-22-2003]

You provide no argumentation. You should respond to the fluid and discrete distinction obviously, if you were to address my argument. Mendel's discovered discrete hereditary units do not provide for the fluidity of variation that Darwinists require for their theory. Or if when genes do have apparent fluidity of variation in some trait, then there probably is some sophisticated mechanism that facillitates that the appearance of fluidity.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Richard Kline never hooked me into Derrida's circle that begged off science any way and what was done in Ithaca was unspeakable for in this biology never used topology. On second wave- bye. This is not a text message

Which Darwinists are you thinking of? The ones from the turn of the century? There are plenty of mutations which have very small phenotypic effects. Would a point mutation which slightly improved the function of a metabolic enzyme allowing better digestion be a suitably 'gradual' characteristic for you?You seem to be trying to shuffle the topic onto the questions of gradualism and blending rather than variation. In what way do mendelian alleles not represent genetic variation. Of course there is a mechanism which "facilitates the appearance of fluidity" its called Genetics!!!!!!! Genetics being a field, along with that of evolutionary biology, which seems to be a completely closed book to you.Darwinism only requires variation, not 'infinite' variation or 'fluidity'. Some mutations give rise to smaller changes than others, a point mutation could give rise to either a small change in expression or binding affinity or to the complete loss of an organ depending on where it arises.But this is all rather beside the point, we were talking about natural selection, can you please tell us what you would be selecting for from a population of genetically identical organisms in the same environment, and what possible effect this selection would have on their offspring that would allow for evolution to occur.

Again, you simply don't read the posts in the thread, much as you go on about me reading the literature about whatever.It was already stated a few posts ago what selection would mean if variation is excluded, and stated several times before that, even in post 1. Selection would be between reproduction or no reproduction / preservation or extinction for a particular trait.This is also consistent with regular usage of the word selection, where selection is understood as passing a certain minimum standard.Besides I think it's rather obvious that you don't know history of Darwinist theory, and that's why you fail to understand my argument about genes being discrete so that they mix, or fluid so that they blend. Darwinism is based on gradualist variation, even Gould has wrote this relatively recently. When Mendels work was rediscovered the discoverers came to be known as mutationists, in stead of Darwinists.When variations are understood to be discrete, then Darwinism really doesn't work. It only works for a range of variation in a trait that uses the same resources, but the one uses the same resources more efficiently for reproduction then the other. In this way selection becomes to be understood not as passing a minimum standard, but as being the best at something (survival of the fittest).regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The first part of the post to which you are replying
suggests an interpretation of natural selection without
variation.Extinction or maximal/over-population is the result.I fail to see how moving to a discussion of the nature
of variation is relevent to that.The second part of the post then adds heritable variation
to the 'world'.Mendel agreed with heritable variation ... that's what his factors
were and that's why his peas showed a discrete set of
traits ... becuase they were the only variations for those features.

I must say you are a twit.If you have 50 genetically identical organisms and then 5000 genetically identical organisms you have not selected for anything. Reproduction is not selection, differential reproduction is!!!!You still fail to understand the concept of a carrying capacity, if every organism in a population at carrying capacity is at least at your 'minimum' standard for survival then what would you ascribe differences in reproductive fitness to? For some reason traits which don't provide 'minimum' fitness, such as embryonic lethal mutations these are being selected against, is every individual with an embryonic lethal mutation a new population.You have clearly never heard of the modern synthesis. Perhaps if you had made it clear that your objections were to a concept of blending which has not been held by evolutionary biologist for almost 100 years, rather than Natural Selection as you claimed, we could all have ignored you much sooner.Your idea is completely useless, you want to apply it to non-existent populations, those showing no variation. As I said before, you seem to want to reduce the concept of species down to single nucleotide polymorphisms so that all genetically distinct organism in the same population in the same environment can be considered individually rather than as part of the population.Where does a change in allele frequency, a very mendelian event, not match up to the spread of a trait through a population through natural selection. And what the hell are you selecting for?????You show an inability to grasp the basic concept of selection. If you have only identical organisms then what can you select, more doesn't mean selection because you aren't selecting anything. Selecting against embryonic lethals is just selection amongst variants.I am quite familiar with Gould's work, both his popular work and his work in the scientific literature and I have never heard of him as being against natural selection. Gould may not like the extreme gradualism Darwin advocates in his writings, but then why should he since he is a paleontologist and Darwins views on paleontology relegated it to a glorified form of card indexing.Your final paragraph is a very good summary of NS, can you point out to me where it requires in any way a form of mixing or a fluidity of traits, I imagine you do not deny the existence of variation in traits so perhaps you could expand on why you prefer fluidity? The description you give of the situation in which NS works would probably describe almost every single population of almost every organism on the planet, except perhaps for a few newly started lab cultures which haven't had any time to produce polymorphisms.Do you intend to ever look at the modern synthesis or are you only ever going to argue against the Darwinism of the previous century? If this is purely a historical exercise for you and you have no real interest in modern evolutionary biology then I think we should draw this discussion to a close.Yours,WK

You don't take criticism of your theory very well, which is very typical of Darwinists.You still have no justification for including variation in the definition of selection. Actually it is you who has to provide the argumentation here, but besides saying something akin to variation exists, you just rant. You still have no justification whatsoever. You now give a vague refence to carryingcapacity, as if that somehow justifies including variation. But that's been discussed before in this thread, and it was shown, that carryingcapacity really only applies in so far as the resources are shared. With a variation you are more likely to have that resources are partly not shared, since a different structure may also more likely relate to a different resource.As mentioned several times before, it is perfectly possible to use a definition of selection which doesn't include variation on a population that has variation. You simply use the definition one time for each variant.The use of nonvariation selection is the kind of definition of selection an environmentalist would use. The concern is with preservation of a species. The variation that is there is largely uninteresting, except in so far as it matters to a species preservation. That might become another catastrophy within biology that Darwinism might likely lead to, apart from the Mendellism debacle. The use of selection in standard Darwinism which permeates through most all biology, is not applicable to extinction of species. It is not meaningful to compare reproductionrates of variants, when all variants are going extinct. The ridiculous Darwinispeak about heritability of zero, the useless reference to variation and the like, is a hindrance in the system of knowledge, so that it become more difficult to deal with this urgent problem.My advise to you is, simply don't post on this subject or any subject that inquires into the fundaments of Darwinism. You can't handle it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I will readily admit that carrying capacity only applies in situations where resources are shared. Even your own tortuously contrived theoretical models did not provide an example where the organisms did not share resources, unless you put them into completely seperate environments, in which case they aren't part of the same population in any meaningful sense. My references to carrying capacity have never been vague, unless perhaps you still haven't grasped the concept of carrying capacity. How can you possibly have a single population which doesn't share resources with itself, your basic premise is a contradiction in terms.I admit I am getting a bit frustrated by your ignoring the fact that simple reproduction is not selection, but I personally don't have a theory, what I get annoyed at is your rather dishonest tactics of continually shifting the ground of the debate and avoiding addressing the questions put to you.Here is an analogy for selection without variation.In the model I advocate I have two knitting patterns, one for a sock and one for a jumper. In your model you have two knitting patterns, both for identical socks but one on blue paper and one on red. In my model I select a pattern based on some criteria, such as needing a jumper, and produce a jumper. In your situation you can have no criteria for selecting a pattern which will in any way affect what is produced, no matter what your criteria you will always get an identical sock, so what has your selection selected for in evolutionary terms?In evolutionary terms selection between genetically identical individuals is no selection at all. Therefore what you call your simplified theory of natural selection is simply a model of population dynamics rather than one of population genetics which is what would be relevant to evolution. And if this sounds familiar it is probably because you refuse to address this point no matter how often I bring it up. Having five or ten genetically identical apples doesnt help you breed a new type of apple. Having five or ten different types of apple could.Your idea of using the model one time for each variant still tells you nothing about 'selection', unless you combine the data which is exactly the comparison you are trying to avoid making. Perhaps your objection to comparisons is an ideological one? Do you consider yourself a strong moral relativists?You have never even touched on any fundamental aspect of modern evolutionary biology, your concept of 'Darwinism' seems to be your own particular strawman made from a confabulation of cherry-picked moments in the history of the development of evolutionary theory.You have suddenly bought in the extinction of species again? Will this shifting of the ground ever stop? It certainly is meaningful to look at variants in a population approaching extinction if you hope to prevent that extinction, especially if you plan on an intensive breeding program. Knowing the genetic make up of all the members in an available population would allow the avoidance of any undesirable recessive traits being allowed to spread widely and would allow any truly detrimental mutations to be eliminated. Of course most breeding programs have no access to such a level of information and in such a case obviously the variation can only be of limited or theoretical value, that doesn't mean that if we could know the details of the variation within the population it wouldn't be useful.As to the idea of traits with Zero heritability, I assume you actually read your own quote from your source though its hard to tell from your reaction to it. What is so hard to grasp about the idea that in a genetically identical population any variation in phenotype, which must be due to environmental factors, may be selectable but is not heritable. Heritability of a phenotypic trait is approximately described by Genetic variance / Phenotypic variance so obviously in the absence of genetic variability it is 0. It seems odd to object to evolutionary theory simply because evolutionary biologists uses technical terms in a way which you do not approve of, could you give us your idea of what heritability is and how you would calculate it.