Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection...

I actually agree with that, as far as it goes ... but I was wondering
since Syamsu focusses on the individual, how s/he would
measure the fitness of one individual within the population.

Well you can measure the differential reproductive success between 2 individuals, it just doesn't mean very much if they are identical individuals, it makes absoloutely no difference which one produces more or less. So you can do it, but what good does it do you? I understand Syamsus point that if you can look at effectively the same individual or population in different environments you can gain useful knowledge, indeed this is the basis of an awful lot of genetic work. I don't think this is the point of natural selection, it just sounds like population dynamics to me.

I agree ... and suggested that to Syamsu about a year ago ...
ah well!!!!My question was more targetted at how one individual's fitness
could be addressed.My feeling would be that for Syamsu it is along the lines of:'Does it reproduce or not?'i.e. a boolean yes/no proposition.That of course misses the mark. So perhaps we could extend
it to be:'Over the individual's lifetime how many offspring does the
individual produce?'This is in line with Syamsu's 'looking at individuals in relation
to the event of reproduction'.But still falls short of a 'fitness' concept. For a
'fitness' concept we need a metric that states what range
of 'offspring production' represents 'fit' and what
range represents 'unfit'. Perhaps this is really a continuum,
so that we have a figure for fitness of (say) 0.0-1.0 for
individual fitness wrt to environment.Perhaps this figure could be derived from 'offspring produced'
and positive and negative selection factors.

You said that people who let their judgement of what is right and wrong be influenced by Natural Selection theory are in need of therapy. That basically puts a fullstop to any meaningful discussion, which I believe is your intention.Darwin was a strong eugenicist, he also rationalised against labour union fearing it would stifle competition among workers, based on Natural Selection theory.So Haeckel, Lorenz, Darwin etc. are in need of therapy, interesting. Dawkins said that atheism becomes intellectually credible through natural selection, so therapy again? Gould talked about moral relativism on account of natural selection, so he also needed therapy?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

When he gets abusive and dismissive like that, frog, it's because you have backed him into a corner that he can't squirm out of.Even if you are successful in getting him to agree that you have a good point, it won't matter because in a few posts he will continue as if you hadn't gotten him to admit anything and the exchange never happened.The only thing I was ever able to get him to correct was his assertion that "The Blind Watchmaker" was a scientific theory, althought it took at least a dozen posts of me saying the same thing over and over before he stopped referring to the book like that.Of course, my mentioning it might get him started calling "Watchmaker" a scientific theory again. I don't know if the correction stuck or not.

Actually Darwin argued AGAINST eugenics as a mischaracterization of the concept of fitness...it was Francis Galton (of fingerprint fame) who used NS as a basis for eugenics even though Darwin opposed him.But considering how oblivious you are to biology, science in general, and the actual history of eugenics it is hardly suprising that your statements on the subject or eugenics are as brain dead as the rest of your posts.But in the unbelievably slim chance that you actually would like KNOW something rather than ASS-erting..you can bone up on it hereIn the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity
Daniel J. Kevles (http://www.amazon.co.uk/...r%5F1%5F2%5F5/026-4136684-6980408)

quote:

---

The same as with the relationship of Darwinism to social darwinism, Nazism, atheism etc. Some evolutionist comes in and talks about baseballbats and the like as comparitive to the influence of Darwinist theory on the intellectual climate of opinion, and the whole discussion is dragged down to a level that makes it impossible for a meaningful discussion on the subject to develop.

---

...and you never answered the question that my baseball bat analogy raised, Syamsu, although I am imressed that you have remembered it from all those months ago. I'll repeat it so you can have another crack at it.Say there is a baseball bat manufacurer (Theory of Evolution)When baseball players (Biologists, Geneticists, and other scientists) use the bats to play baseball (do science), the intended use of baseball bats (the ToE), nobody gets hurt.However, it is possible that some gangsters (racists, sexists, ideologues, those seeking political power) might misuse the baseball bats (The ToE) and use them in a way they were never meant to be used, like hitting people over the head with them (applying the tenets of Biological Evolution in social or political contexts).Are we to blame the baseball bat manufacurer (ToE) and baseball players (scientists) because some gangsters (social Darwinists) use the bats for something it wasn't intended to be used for?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-15-2003]

The most inclusive view of fitness would be to view in terms of preservation, so that you can rationalize numbers of offspring produced, such as with plants having many seeds, as a trait which contributes to preservation. Very generally the point of selection is to view in terms of the continuation of something or no continuation, so then reproduction can be treated as a subset of the many generations continuum of preservation.This is distinct from Malthusian Darwinism, which is the original Darwinism, which is about the continuation of one or the other variant through one making the other extinct. This is obviously wrong within the framework of continuation for being prejudicial, because in Nature also both can continue, or neither, and there are more relationships between variants in nature which are relevant to the question of continuation, then one making the other extinct.How exactly it should be measured, I'm not sure, only that people who work in Zoo's, or people trying to save endangered species must know it to do their jobs properly. It's mainly covered by basic biology, such as what resources plants use contributes to reproduction, and what dangers they face diminishes reproduction.For instance if you have some birds who migrate south, then measuring the number of birds in the population, you can say that the chance of reproduction before migration is 5 percent, and those that make it the arduous journey south have a 40 percent chance, etc. You could also say the chance of reproduction is transferred from those that die during the journey south, to those that live, if there is some probality of a shortage of resources for the birds later on. Viewing this way it immediately becomes clear that competition is about contingency. It becomes interesting to view highly contingent events such as mating, and to what extent reproduction is manipulated by such contingent factors.Also, as I think.... Brad pointed out, it's possible that novelty is something that manipulates continuation, like that unless novelty is introduced a system naturally is set to become extinct. Although the words novelty and continuation seem inconsistent with each other.So you can have survival, reproduction, preservation and novelty as different means of continuation, which selection then can be said to operate on.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Novelty, hmmm, sounds a lot like variation to me.

If I hand you a baseball bat (apologies to schraf. for
hijacking a very neat analogy) and you look at it
and say 'This is disgusting, look at the damage I can do
if I whack you on the head with it!' as your first thought
what do you think that would say about your mental state?I then say 'No, it's just for playing games!'
You reply 'Ridiculous! If I use it to bash you it'll crack
your skull open ... this is clearly how anyone would use
this baseball bat!! Anyone who doesn't immediately think that
this is a fine example of a bashing-weapon hasn't actually
put any thought into it.'Bashing someone with the baseball bat has nothing to do with
the bat ... it's to do with the wielder. Anything can be put
to uses other than those intended ... perverted, if you will.That doesn't make the bat evil, but it does suggest that the
individuals could benefit from a little therapy .. or at least
socialisation.

quote:

---

For instance if you have some birds who migrate south, then measuring the number of birds in the population, you can say that the chance of
reproduction before migration is 5 percent, and those that make it the arduous journey south have a 40 percent chance, etc. You could also say the chance of reproduction is transferred from those that die during the journey south, to those that live, if there is some probality of a shortage of resources for the birds later on. Viewing this way it immediately becomes clear that competition is about contingency. It becomes interesting to view
highly contingent events such as mating, and to what extent reproduction is manipulated by such contingent factors.

---

...a fine description of natural selection & sexual selection.You have taken a population and posited that some relationship
with the environment means that only 40% survive migration,
and thus are in a position to contribute to the next generation.
Of these 40% only some unspecified proportion DO mate (due to
mate selection, resource constraints, etc.)That IS natural selection.

quote:

---

So you can have survival, reproduction, preservation and novelty as different means of continuation, which selection then can be said to operate on.

---

Survival to reproduce ensure preservation (of the species).
Novelty tips the balance in favour of beneficial novelties.
Natural & Sexual selective pressures both operate (As Darwin
suggested).

quote:

---

The most inclusive view of fitness would be to view in terms of preservation, so that you can rationalize numbers of offspring produced, such as with plants having many seeds, as a trait which contributes to preservation. Very generally the point of selection is to view in terms of the continuation of something or no continuation, so then reproduction can be treated as a subset of the many generations continuum of preservation.

---

As soon as you start looking at 'many generations' you are no longer
looking at individuals. Which dp you require the focus upon?

quote:

---

This is distinct from Malthusian Darwinism, which is the original Darwinism, which is about the continuation of one or the other variant through one making the other extinct. This is obviously wrong within the framework of continuation for being prejudicial, because in Nature also both can continue, or neither, and there are more relationships between variants in nature which are relevant to the question of continuation, then one making the other extinct.

---

I don't beleive that competition is stated as a necesarry
requirement for evolution by natural selection.It is one environmental factor, clearly.

Darwin stimulated the eugenics of Galton, encouraged people to turn marriage into an institution of eugenics to breed better stock of people, lamented the reproduction of undesirables etc. All can be read in "Descent of Man". He also argued against eugenics in the "Descent of Man", sort of, saying that to withhold aid to undesirables would destroy the most valuable parts in nature of man. He didn't mean that the undesirables where the most valuable part of our nature, but that the "act" of not helping them would destroy the most valuable part of the nature of the people not helping. So he was a sort of meek eugenicist. Apart from that there are various quotes in other writings like where he opposes trade unions because it would stifle Natural Selection, and something about fighting the Turks.Maybe Darwin did write something against eugenics, about the misapplication of fitness, but since in his main work about people "The Descent of Man", he comes out in support of eugenics, and the whole work is riddled with judgementalism seamlesly entertwined with talking about fitness, it can never be said that Darwin was on balance anti-eugenics. He also had an obsessive personal pre-occupation with eugenics because of his daughters death.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You must be referring to the book "The selfish gene, not "the blind watchmaker". The Selfish Gene is regarded as science by a great share of Darwinists. Some consider it wrong, but then it may still be regarded as science even if it's wrong I guess. I would consider it pseudo-science, or hatespeech, so I guess that's where the misunderstanding comes from. If you ask me it's not science, if you ask someone else then it is.A baseballbat is not really very comparitive to a theory..... of course. It's obviously your intention to stop any meaningful discussion about that subject with that inane argument.Why with Mammatus screeching at me, and Peter supporting you, that might create an atmosphere that people actually buy into your argument. But then after you have all won here, you can never really explain to the sane people you know who are not on internetforums, that the theory of Natural Selection is like a baseballbat....As before, you can also discuss the relations of creationist conceptions of the immutability of species, to racist conceptions of racial purity. But now we're discussing Darwinism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu