Destroying Darwinism

Well since Syamsu isn’t going to withdraw his lie I intend to cease dialog in this topic. But not before I post my summation of his argument.Arms have a heritability of zero. Therefore I have no arms. If I have no arms there can be no variation in arms. And arms must reproduce by themselves without competition. However, if there are no arms I can’t do a whole lot of hand waving, which I am clearly doing, therefore there can be no natural selection.

Arms have a heritability of zero, because arms are generally not varying genetically in the population. The title of the article I reffered to states: "Why do *adaptations* *generally* have a heritability of zero". Why don't you read the thing, since apparently you still don't comprehend heritability of zero of traits that are genetically uniform in a population.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Selection: the relationship of an organism to it's environment in terms of it's reproduction, where selecting for means a relationship that contributes to reproduction, and selecting against means a relationship that diminishes reproduction. I guess reproduction should be understood as reproductive stability / preservation.You must have the false idea that a symbiotic relationship between variants is somehow derived from a competitive relationship between variants.The story of the origin of the photosynthesis trait is not a story about the relative success of photosyntheis compared to non-photosynthesis (that's uninteresting), it's about how the relationship light-photosynthesis contributes to reproduction. Each variant has it's own story, just like frogs and elephants have their own story.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Rather bizzarely I typed in your definition to google and as far as I can see the only person using this definition is you. The first three results are threads you have started on discussion boards, including E/C, after that the words just turn up spread throughout the pages that were hits, many of which do have definitions of natural selection but none of which agree with yours. If this 'standard' definition is not purely of your own devising then perhaps a reference would be helpful or at least a quoting of your source rather than your own unique paraphrasing.Now for once I will do something which might constitute an appeal to authority, I shall quote you some definitions which might be thought of as standard. Would you agree with any of these? If not then how is your definition in any way 'standard'?

No the standard definition is differential reproductive success of variants, which is basically the same as the definitions you got from the web.I gave the cut-down definition, without variation, which you asked for, which is just my own.(edited to add)
I misunderstood, i figured you were asking for the cut-down definition because I already gave you the standard definition a couple of times before.hmmm and after all this, when someone else asks you for the justification to include variation, you can only give a vague story about carryingcapacity, competition and evolutionary meaningful and then hope that the one who'se asking doesn't know about Occam's razor.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 06-27-2003]

It would depend if the person who was asking actually understood any of the concepts. Given your apparent ignorance of population genetics or any evolutionary theory since the turn of the previous century it has been pretty uphill work I admit. (oh alright I admit that is a gratuitous ad hominem with no merit whatsoever in terms of debate)There is nothing vague about carrying capacity or any of those definition I reffered to which all required variation. What is vague is how you propose to use your reduced version in anyway that will actually describe the evolution of a trait without comparing it to the population it arises in.I fear you have a harder task proving to anyone that you can make any sort of meaningful selection from a set of identical things.

The first three of the definitions you provide do not
include variation or populations ... they are
in line with my own (based on lit. review) understanding
of what Natural Selection is.The final one has (2) which is the natural selection part.Not even Darwin said that natural selection required variation,
he said that evolution by natural selection required heritable
variation.Syamasu has had this all explained before, but will most likely
find some definitions with the word variation in and then
say that he is justified because no-one can agree.Evolution is a cyclic process of reproduction followed by
selection followed by reproduction, but can only lead to
novel adaptations if there is variation introduced along the
way. There is ... they are called mutations and are observable
(that was for Syamsu by the way ...).

These changes are variation within the population Both of these clearly contain terms which require a comparative assessment of fitness, what are you comparing them with if not other variants within the population.So your line Peter is that Syamsu is right to say that variation is not required for natural selection, but wrong to say that differential reproductive sucess of variants is what Darwinists propose Natural selection to be.Obviously our respective readings of the Evolutionary literature have led us to differing understandings of the nature of natural selection.

I'm afraid Peter, and several others on this ng have seen that selection without variation is very useful. They would want to talk consistently about the preservation of a species, about negative and positive selective factors that influence the preservation, in respect to endangered species, but also in respect to normal functioning of organisms. So that's why they have come to this rather bizarre position of at the same time acknowledging variation can be cut, but that it should be included because... I don't know. They also say that everyone in science knows that selection is essentially without variation, which they just made up of course.One of them stated that you can simply enter zero (or 1) in the number of variations, and that's why the standard definition also includes selection without variation.And after such a difference in opinion is shown, Percipient will most likely pop up with a post, saying something like "we're all on the same page" just to say that these differences don't matter, and all positions are about the same. And then the issue is burried until I post about it again.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This thread seems to be in a timewarp.Oops, sorry I thought this was a different thread.Not that this one doesn't seem to have a cyclical nature from time to time.[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 06-29-2003]

quote:

---

So your line Peter is that Syamsu is right to say that variation is not required for natural selection, but wrong to say that differential reproductive sucess of variants is what Darwinists propose
Natural selection to be.

---

Basically yes.Differential reproductive success of variants is, well,
evolution (or at least a major cause of evolution).Natural selection decribes the relationships between the
individual and its environment that contribute to its
survival (and consequently to its input into the next
generation).That doesn't require variation, but without variation the
net effect is somewhat uninteresting.The line I have taken with Syamsu is, variation isn't necessary
for natural selection ... but tried to point out
that natural selection isn't evolution ... it's a cause
of evolution when variation IS present.In practice ignoring variation is ridiculous, in principle it
is not required for natural selection.Darwin called in natural selection because he found the process
to be much like the selection breeders do (as I am sure you
know) ... and a breeder presented with an all black labrador litter
when they wanted chocolate would not breed any of them
(well OK they might because they may understand the coat
colour genetics better than a blind, phenotypic-focussed process) ...
that said they would grab a different sire or dam and go again.

OK I'm prepared to admit that you could think of 'natural selection' without variation was a possible but uninteresting concept, in as much as you can describe the relationship of a population to its environment without requiring variation, this already has a perfectly good name however it is called population dynamics and since there isn't actually any selection going on I don't see why you feel selection should be included, there may be pressures on the population but without anything to select for they are not perhaps selective pressures even though they are exactly the same pressures as selective pressures. Once again the concept is relative to the population it is acting upon.I don't agree that this is what the concept of Natural selection is usually understood to mean however.I'm not sure what your final example is supposed to show. The extinction of a whole population in favour of a different populatin still involves selection between the populations. A better analogy would be for the dog breeder to shoot all his dogs even though he has absoloutely no other breeding stock. While he might have got a chocolate coat eventually from his black dogs he is never going to get one with no dogs at all.

That's exactly what I meant ... without variation
natural selection leads to binary populational
effects ... i.e. extinction or continuation.It's true that if you step back another level you
can say that a whole population was selected against.More or less what I am saying though, is that Syamusu is right
in so far as you can view natural selection without variation
but that it is comletely pointless to do so.Natural selection was only ever described as a driving
force for evolution and it's explanatory power ends there.I had hoped that pointing out that you can view natural selection
that way might have a positive impact on his/her posts ...
it hasn't and the cycle loops back ....

quote:

---

More or less what I am saying though, is that Syamusu is right
in so far as you can view natural selection without variation
but that it is comletely pointless to do so.

---

Interesting... when I went through this with Syamsu, he was arguing that NS/ToE was faulty because it could not be applied to zero variation populations. (I took the position you take, and so did several other people.) Did I miss something?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I think that's what I have got from previous
discussions with Sy on this ... it seems this
time that s/he may be OK if variation isn't necessary.Maybe we are making some head-way ... no can't be!!