Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection...

When you read Darwin's "Descent of Man" it becomes clear that he thinks altruism is more fit, in the sense of it being higher in terms of evolutionary progress. So yes he was all the things you say, and this was totally in line with his conception of fitness.Konrad Lorenz was not just a party member but a member of a nazi race-office, for which he once participated in "selecting" people when the Nazi's were "Germanizing" the population in Posen. That can be read in "Biologists under Hitler" by Ute Deichmann. His books, the theory of which was first published in Nazi science-journals, is known to be slanted towards Nazism in things like the subjectmatter chosen, and it's also factually wrong on some observation in a way that slants the story towards agressive violence.Your contention about social darwinists not understanding Natural Selection has no merit, unless you say that some of the most influential Darwinian scientists themselves, including Galton, Haeckel, Darwin, Lorenz etc. did not understand Natural Selection.No I'm not going to deal with those theoretical models. You don't have any justification for including variation, why in the last thread you mistakenly talked about selection without referring to variation at all.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Actually I don't agree with his theory even then. In a parthenogenetic population there could stil be no natural selection except between variants. The entire point of selection is to select something, with nothing to choose between how can it be called selection?Differential reproductive success between 2 individuals who are identical genetically, epigenetically and in any other heritable way is not differential reproductive success in evolutionary terms because evolutionarily these 2 organisms are effectively the same and any difference in reproduction must due to either differences in the environment or random factors. This might let you plot the gradual movement over successive generations of a clonal population to an environment it finds most suitable, but this wouldn't be evolution, it would be migration.

Message 43, Syamsu?You're looking pretty ridiculous.

I don't think so. It's childish to fingerpoint elsewhere, that's no argument. You just do it because you're afraid to discuss how darwinism relates to social darwinism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Again...I guess it may have some common sense appeal to say that selection must be between variants, however in common language the word selection criteria etc. is also used when there is just one candidate.The selection is simply between reproduction, or no reproduction. There is no evolution to the point of interest in differential reproductive success, the origin of species. Evolution like that only happens at mutation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It's not elsewhere. You brought religion into it, not me. You basically said that Darwinism is bad, because it leads to genocide, racism, and turning away from religion. That implies you see religion as superior to Darwinism. But how can that be the case when religion is the source of as much racism and genocide and hatred as anything else?Furthermore, how can you even say that Darwinism is the source of those things when it's obvious we find hatred and racism in every group? Actually, I'm not afraid at all. Social Darwinism is predicated on the idea that natural selection is an ideal. In reality, it's simply an observation - the fit survive. Ergo, social darwinism is predicated on error, therefore it is in error.

It seems you have a better grasp of synmsus theory than do I. LOL. The only point that I would make is that in true parthenogenesis (thelytoky, ameotic type), the individuals could be considered to belong to individual species. In such a case you don’t have a population. But I agree its ridiculous way of thinking about it. Primarily because of niche theory. But, f there was only one individual in the species can NS apply to it? I think so. It reproduces or not. There is no population to spread alleles through. Heritability is zero. It becomes I little like the bizarre situation symatsu wants us to consider.

Again....Please let no creationist by intimidated by the likes of Autocatalysis. Selection without variation still applies in populations that have variation, but it just applies individually to each variant and not comparitively. In the non-comparitive, individual selection the other variants might be selective pressures on the variant under investigation. This individual approach is more flexible then the comparitive approach.Standard Natural Selection, differential reproductive success of variants, almost never applies, for share of populations that exist and have existed. What is observed is stasis. Organisms in populations in stasis can be excellently described with selection without variation. Looking in terms of selection without variation provides the basic biology about each organism. For instance white wingcolor of moths on white trees protects from predatory birds, so contributes to reproduction that way... There is no need to refer to any black moths in the population, as Darwinists do, to have the theory be meaningful.So again, these Darwinists have no argument whatsoever, unless they want to deny basic biology, which they implicitly deny continuously as Autocatalysis does here, and Peter did before in this thread.I'd be most interested in some creationist response now about the merits and demerits of my argument....regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

What about selection for sexual behaviors and traits, i.e. bright plumage? Don't you have to take the relationship of "variants" into account, because they're competing for mates?Even if you just want to look at one organism and its environment, that's still comparitive, because the organism's cohorts represent part of its environment. Given that almost every creationist organization recognizes the reality of natural selection among variants in a population, what makes you think they'll be any more forgiving than we have been?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-14-2003]

Your argument is stupid, just like Schrafinator's argument about Darwinism and baseballbats. Unless you can argue along the lines of how Darwinism influences the intellectual climate of opinion in individuals, and society in general, then I don't think your posts on the subject merit any response whatsoever.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Because I think creationists more rely on common sense, and straightforward logic. I don't think any creationists would accept the language of heritability being zero for traits that are uniform in a population, eventhough a trait is passed on to offspring, or accept that a white moth is only fit if there are black moths in the population.Besides I also think most creationists are in it to protect freedom of religion from Darwinists associations to Nazism, racism and atheism, and my argument is focused on that.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 07-14-2003]

Oh, I'm terribly sorry. I assumed by posting on an internet discussion forum, you wanted to discuss. But I guess I was wrong - all you want to do is call people names when you can't refute their arguments.Well, that's fine. You're only making yourself look like an idiot, after all. On the other hand the admins may wish to chat with you about this apparent gross violation of the forum guidelines.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-14-2003]

I don't want to drag the discussion down by engaging in your "argument" which is really just fingerpointing.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The white moth is still fit, but there is no differential in fitness between one white moth and another exactly identical white moth in the same environment.

There is no differential hence there is no fitness in standard Natural Selection. Fitness in standard Natural Selection is always relative to another variant.From the glossary of this site:
Note the words comparing, relative, populational genetic changes etc.Fitness: Central to evolutionary concepts evaluating genotypes and populations, fitness has had many definitions, ranging from comparing growth rates to comparing long-term survival rates. The basic fitness concept that population geneticists commonly use is relative reproductive success, as governed by selection in a particular environment; that is, the ability of an organism (genotype) to transmit its genes to the next reproductively fertile generation, relative to this ability in other genotypes in the same environment ("relative fitness"). Since there are forces other than selection that influence genotype frequencies (for example, mutation, random genetic drift, migration), fitness is not the only way of characterizing short-term populational genetic changes. Nevertheless, because reproductive success, sooner or later, affects most variation, fitness and selection enter into practically all enduring organismic-environmental interactions, with adaptations their phenotypic manifestations.
----Which may lead you to look up adaptation in the glossary, but then you will find the same comparitive mumbo-jumbo which then refers back to fitness like: "Darwinians replaced this view by proposing that an adaptation is any trait that replaces other variants because of selection for greater reproductive success (See Fitness)."regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu