|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: Of course variation between parent and offspring are considered...populations are made of what? heritable traits are passed from parant to..you got it..offspring! You are the one who endlessly denies there is variation among anything....you also did not answer my question..do you think you are identical genetically and morphologically to your parents?
quote: And our arguments are tripe? This sounds like drug induced delirium..if you are born with a genetic disease that prevents you from reproducing, how do you propose that further mutations in said individual are relevant to the genetics of the next generation?...if you don't or cannot pass it on..it is irrelevant...use it or lose it.
quote: Hmmm a molecular biologist as a zookeeper...nah...I'm not qualified. Could you please however provide the inuestry standard which clearly states for all zookeepers that they should describe organisms in terms of their survivals, reproduction, and preservation?So zookeepers don't call rabbits rabbits? They have to call them "still surviving, have lots of sex frequently, well preserved thingies"...wow I am glad you cleared that up for my S...you really are an expert. In any case, you are wrong about conservation as well. Conservationists try to identify rare species and VARIANTS and preserve them. Molecular conservation often focuses on finding hotspots of genetic VARIATION in geographical areas to focus conservation efforts...they don't look for the animals that are screwing the most or the least and then say...poor guy over there has not had sex all week...better dart him tag him and find him a date.
quote: You can doubt my knowledge as you will...I doubt your sanity and your ability to comprehend written text. As to why variation is included has been explained to you a thousand times...you have yet to justify excluding it as thus far your arguments have been beaten like a dead horse..oh excuse me..by your definition..sill surviving, probably somewhere having sex at the moment if not racing for money, well preserved seen on TV talking during the 50's animal thingy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Natural selection is NOT a theory it is an OBSERVATION.
If I am describing an organism's behaviour is it a completeand correct description if I fail to mention that, for example, on taking over the group the new leader kills all of the young? If I leave that detail out, have I described nature wrt thatcreature correctly? Preservation of endangered species is a worthwhile enterprise.It is NOT the subject matter of evolutionary theory, however. Do you complain about quantum mechanics becuase it does notaid in the preservation of endangered species? Justify your answer. Re:baseball bats: If you cannot understand the analogy look at it this way: A causes B If and only if 1) For each instance of A the consequence is B AND 2) There exists no instance of B that is not preceded by and instance of A. That is cause and effect. If A is knowledge of Darwinian evolution and B is racism the abovecan be violted by: 1) A person knowledgeable wrt Darwinian evolution who is not a racist.OR 2) A racists who does not know about Darwinian evolution. If you can find either of the above then A does not cause B. The implicaiton is that something ELSE is the cause of B.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
You have not countered my argument Mammuthus, the standard definition of Natural Selection is equally wrong by your argument, because it also relies on reproduction / copying.
When conserving species you are not comparing variants to each other as you do in differential reproductive success. Conservationists view variation entirely differently then Darwinists, and actually they view it in a way opposite to Darwinism most times, since they treat variation as generally symbiotic where Darwin treat variants usually as opposites. All explained numerous times before. You just begin yelling that I'm wrong whenever the term variation pops up, but it doesn't work that way. You are excluding looking at individual forms by requiring variation, I am not exclduding variation, I am not excluding anything. Anyway it should be clear to everyone that to preserve, you need to look in terms of what enhances and diminishes chances of preservation, that is the basics of it as any professional conservationist knows. I don't believe it can reasonably be called insane to call your arguments tripe. You are obviously locked into a train of thought, Darwinism, and you can't even begin to think sensibly outside that framework of thought, even when you have plenty of motivation to do so, like with saving endangered species. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: You have no argument S...it seems the only arguement you are presenting is that to accept the fact of natural selection makes one 1) an atheist 2) nazi. As to natural selection, no..just because your position is confused and based on fallacy does not make mine so. Natural selection relies on heritable variation and environment. The examples you have presented have no basis in logic and in addition are not supported by lab or natural examples.
quote: When did you suddenly become a conservationist? I thought your goal was to prove that biologists are all nazi's? Anyway, a conservationist is not studying the evolution of the species. They are usually trying to ensure its survival...or are you now going to say that because line chefs at a diner don't think about reproduction in evolutionary terms that we should use hamburgers cooked per hour as the foundation of a scientific theory?.....the rest of your paragraph is pure nonesense, most of the words I doubt you really know the meaining of for example symbiotic... "Conservationists view variation entirely differently then Darwinists, and actually they view it in a way opposite to Darwinism most times, since they treat variation as generally symbiotic where Darwin treat variants usually as opposites" You used a lot of words to say nothing intelligible....
quote: How can there be "individual forms" if there is no variation? According to you there should be only one form with multiple representatives i.e. you should be identical to your parents..and everyone else for that matter
quote: Nice sentiment Mr. conservationist...I am sure the remaining black rhino's are sleeping more soundly tonight knowing you are on the case....now please explain what the above statement had to do with natural selection or evolution?
quote: Again, a logical fallacy...I did not postulate your insantiy based on you calling my arguments tripe
quote: Hmmm how many species have you saved S? Your concern is turning me misty eyed. But in any case, you have not presented a sensible alternative to the fact that anybody besides you that looks at any species sees that individuals of any group vary from one another...until you can demonstrate that every member of any group of organisms are identical (find an example please) and when the group is faced with environmental stress that all variants have an equal chance of contributing to the next generation you will merely be an amusing quack in the Free for All of an internet forum....that it pisses you off that nobody takes your misconceived musings based on ignorance and an obvious fundamentalist religious agenda seriously is rather obvious...but don't let me keep you from saving all those non-variant endangered species you have suddenly become so fond of. [This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 07-17-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
You can leave that detail in, but your description of it will probably be wrong. It's a contingency that lions kill the cubs, (which you are probably referring to) sometimes it happens sometimes it doesn't happen, probably best explained in pscyhological terms of intimacy through physical proximity, not genetic proximity. The lion kills the cubs because it has not built any emotional ties with them, because the lion was not physically close to the cubs much. Or it kills them . as a side-effect of the aggressive behaviour for taking over the pride etc. For a genetic theory to have merit, you would do better to find some plants where this sort of thing occurs, because then you can exclude the contingency of the nervous system. According to this theory we should have lots of plants that kill each other by providing killerpollen to other plants, after the plant itself has been fertilized. Failing those sorts of examples, it looks sucpiously like that what those kinds of behaviourists describe as genetic, is just a contingency of the nervous system.
I must say though that I believe that above argument, and your argument, has nothing whatsoever to do with including variation in the definition of NS. The simplemindedness of the baseballbat is that baseballbat do not enter into people's minds, much, while the theory of Natural Selection does enter into people's minds. Since judging in terms of right and wrong is in the same mind as judging in terms of fit and unfit..... regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Here is a baseball bat entering peoples minds..much
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I knew it was a mistake to use an actual example.
You are too easily distracted by details, and cannot step back to see the point being made. Either that or you deliberately try to divert attentionfrom things that refute you. The question was would NOT mentioning that aspect of theobserved behaviour be valid in a study of the behaviour of that animal? It has everything to do with it. You are claiming that 'variation' is a part of the 'theoryof natural selection', when it should not be there. I am saying that natural selection is not a THEORY at all,but the name given to an OBSERVED feature of the nature world. Do you accept that there is a marked difference between a THEORYand an OBSERVATION? Judging right and wrong has nothing to do with judging fit and unfit. If YOU suppose that fit==right and unfit==wrong you are using thebaseball bat to drive in nails, when it is intended for hitting a pitched ball. That's your problem ... don't transfer your thought processesonto everyone else. Your problem is basically that if WE are correct then YOU havea problem with race issues. I notice that you have still not answered my original questiondespite my rephrasing it in almost every post to you, and that you have made no comment on causal relationships. You have also dismissed Schrafinator's analogy without statingclearly your objections to it. Saying that baseball bats do not enter the mind in the way that NS does is unsupportable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Oh yeah..and even plants try to knock each other off...
J Exp Bot. 2000 Jun;51(347):1117-25. Related Articles, Links Exclusion of grass roots from soil organic layers by Calluna: the role of ericoid mycorrhizas. Genney DR, Alexander IJ, Hartley SE. Department of Plant and Soil Science, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3UU, UK. d.r.genney@abdn.ac.uk The role of ericoid mycorrhizal colonization in competition between the dwarf shrub Calluna vulgaris and coarse grass Nardus stricta was investigated. Nardus was grown alone, or in competition with Calluna, in a layered organic/sand substrate with and without inoculation with the ericoid mycorrhizal endophyte Hymenoscyphus ericae, and with and without the addition of nitrogen. Root length and allocation between different substrate layers was assessed along with plant biomass, nutrient uptake and mycorrhizal colonization. Calluna was the superior competitor for nutrients, probably because of its ability to concentrate root growth in the upper organic layer. In the presence of Calluna both the absolute amount and proportion of Nardus root length in the organic layer were reduced, and this reduction was greatest when Calluna was mycorrhizal. The presence of ericoid mycorrhizal colonization did not reduce Nardus shoot nutrient content or concentration, suggesting that ericoid mycorrhizal suppression of Nardus growth was not due to nutrient competition: alternative mechanisms of interference are discussed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
As argued countless times before, you are simply invalidating most biology, by invalidating descriptions that don't mention variation. Look at any textbook about whatever plant, organism etc. it is unlikely you would find mention of any variation of the organism at all, but you will find descriptions of their reproductioncycle. And when there is mention of variants it is most probably not in a Darwinian comparitive context, since there is almost always stasis in populations. The standard definition of selection is almost never applied to organisms around today, it is almost exclusively applied historically. That you have turned this around to argue that the cut-down definition doesn't apply very much because of all the variation that exists, is a complete reversal of the truth. The standard definition of Natural Selection doesn't apply very much at all, and the cut down version can be used commonly.
You have no argument, you just assert your authority on the subject, time after time after time after time. I think more likely you are so full of yourself as the expert, that when I call your arguments tripe, that you then think I suffer from even higher delusions of grandeur then you do. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Peter:
"Saying that baseball bats do not enter the mind in the way that NS does is unsupportable." Although about delusions of grandeur I must admit that I think my arguments about how exactly Darwinism influences intellectual climate of opinion are a 100 times better then your arguments, like you present here. But unfortunately the difference is just that your arguments are tripe, and my arguments are normal standard, and not that my arguments are genius. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: Well at least you admit your descriptions have been invalidated.
quote: Look up in any textbook or primary lit paper about the evolution of whatever plant, organism etc. and it will talk all about their variation. That a basic description of an organism takes an average of the organism is not surprising..or would you expect a description of the chinese would include a description of each and every chinese person?
quote: Oh really? describe a cichlid then LOL!...stasis..LOL!
quote: Do you make this crap up as you go along or do you practice in front of the mirror?.....you might want to then alert the thousands of researchers studying selection today and let them know that they have time travelled by to "historical" times...
quote: You should sell whatever drugs your on S...you would make a fortune.
quote: Ok pal...then using your definition..explain the evolution of cichlids in a way that is in accord with the mountains of gathered data without any reference to variation..have fun
quote: So, it is your contention that by being ignorant it makes your assertions more valid?...does anybody you know actually listen to you or take you seriously?
quote: I don't think you necessarily suffer from delusions of grandeur but you certainly are suffering from delusions. Actually, I think you are so clouded by your fundamentalist religious agenda that you just spout the same crap over and over hoping that somehow it will make it true...but it does not seem to be working. You are the weakest link..goodbye
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 07-17-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Whatever Mammuthus. As before you seem to be locked into evolutionist / darwinist thought. Preservation doesn't really have much to do with evolution.... of course. You have not provided any coherent argument to the subject at issue. Again standard textbooks about any organism do not talk about variations in a comparitive Darwinist context of differential reproductive success, that is simply a lie.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
So can you explain the concept of donor/host rejection from my immunology text book without talking about variation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2201 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Syamsu, explain to me in a POINT BY POINT analysis why you think that my analogy is in error. I think, as do others here, that it is a good analogy that is an effective illustration of how it makes no sense to blame the Theory of Evolution if people misuse it. Why do you simply declare that it is wrong yet refuse to explain how you came to this conclusion? I believe that it is because you cannot, and I am right and you are wrong, but you refuse to admit it because you are incapable of breaking away from your delusion. Explain, in detailed, point by point analysis, why the analogy fails, or admit that it is valid and you have been incorrectly blaming the ToE for people's misuse of it.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Your arguments concerning the effects of Darwinism on
the intellectual climate (or on general populace's opinions which is what you seem to refer to more often) are non-existent. You have stated, in one form or another, that anyone who knowsabout Darwim's evolutionary theory, and in particular his efforts concerning the descent of man, would be inclined to think in terms of racial supremecy, eugenics, and Nazism. You might, that doesn't mean EVERYONE does. Using someone's theory as support for ones opinion (alreadyheld) does not mean that the theory affected the thinking that made that opinion. You are projecting your own opinion onto ALL people. Thisis not valid. You have not answered (STILL): 1) Theory Vs. Description RE:Natural selection. 2) The nature of causation. Am I to assume that you do not answer these points becauseyou cannot?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024