Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection...

quote:

---

For those that keep on saying that variation exists, as if that's some kind of argument, I can equally say the standard definition is wrong then by that argument, because the standard definition also doesn't consider variation between parent and offspring.They are simply reproduced, copied, and no attention is given to copying errors / mutation.

---

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:

---

For istance when there is some mutation that makes some organ dysfunctionate, then when the reproductive success of the dysfunctioniate mutant is measured against the non-mutant population, it's not supposed that the non-mutant will mutate or whatever... What a load of tripe you all offer as argument.

---

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:

---

It's a shame you find it meaningless to look in terms of preservation Mammutthus because then I guess we will have no damn way of helping endgangered species and reversing the trend. You're obviously also disqualified as a zookeeper. The selectioncriteria for the job as zookeeper clearly state you should know to describe organisms in terms of their survival, reproduction, and preservation.

---

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:

---

Maybe you have much knowledge, although I'm beginning to doubt that now, but your arguments are tripe. Variation exists, this is your justification for including variation in the definition of selection. Fair is fair, now you've given your argument so you should just shut up, since there is no possible way to further your argument anymore.

---

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.

Natural selection is NOT a theory it is an OBSERVATION.If I am describing an organism's behaviour is it a complete
and 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 that
creature 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 not
aid 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 BIf and only if1) For each instance of A the consequence is BAND2) 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 above
can 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.

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

quote:

---

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.

---

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 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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

I don't believe it can reasonably be called insane to call your arguments tripe.

---

Again, a logical fallacy...I did not postulate your insantiy based on you calling my arguments tripe

quote:

---

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.

---

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]

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

Here is a baseball bat entering peoples minds..much

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 attention
from things that refute you.The question was would NOT mentioning that aspect of the
observed 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 'theory
of 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 THEORY
and 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 the
baseball bat to drive in nails, when it is intended for hitting
a pitched ball.That's your problem ... don't transfer your thought processes
onto everyone else.Your problem is basically that if WE are correct then YOU have
a problem with race issues.I notice that you have still not answered my original question
despite 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 stating
clearly your objections to it. Saying that baseball bats do
not enter the mind in the way that NS does is unsupportable.

Oh yeah..and even plants try to knock each other off...J Exp Bot. 2000 Jun;51(347):1117-25. Related Articles, LinksExclusion 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.ukThe 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.

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

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

quote:

---

As argued countless times before, you are simply invalidating most biology, by invalidating descriptions that don't mention variation.

---

Well at least you admit your descriptions have been invalidated.

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

Oh really? describe a cichlid then LOL!...stasis..LOL!

quote:

---

The standard definition of selection is almost never applied to organisms around today, it is almost exclusively applied historically.

---

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:

---

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.

---

You should sell whatever drugs your on S...you would make a fortune.

quote:

---

The standard definition of Natural Selection doesn't apply very much at all, and the cut down version can be used commonly.

---

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:

---

You have no argument, you just assert your authority on the subject, time after time after time after time.

---

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 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.

---

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]

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

So can you explain the concept of donor/host rejection from my immunology text book without talking about variation?

quote:

---

Fair is fair, now you've given your argument so you should just shut up, since there is no possible way to further your argument anymore.

​

Same thing goes for the argument about baseballbats.

---

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:

---

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?

---

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 knows
about 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 (already
held) does not mean that the theory affected the thinking
that made that opinion.You are projecting your own opinion onto ALL people. This
is 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 because
you cannot?