Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection...

Will the last one to go away please close this thread?

OK

I thought that I would post two rather specific examples of the variation of a specific trait or group of traits as well as their effects both with respect to fitness as defined by Natural Selection as well as how they interrelate to Sexual Selection. These are real world examples, some of which I have posted references to in Syamsu’s earlier rant on this topic.The two species are Rana lessonae and Rana esculenta for frogs and Gryllus integer for field crickets. As I doubt that many have subscriptions I have posted links to my earlier posts of the abstracts. The main reasons that these are of interest is that, not only are there clear descriptions of genetically based variations in size, developmental speed and behavior, but there are descriptions on how the organisms interact with the environment and how the genetic variation leads to differences in the phenotypic expression that can be selected for or against in the environment. You know Syamsu, all of those things which you say do not exist or are not important.Lets start with the frogs and go over what has been mentioned in the past. Tadpoles which are either larger or mature faster have an increased rate of survival to adulthood and therefore to sexual maturity. There is variation within these survival levels and therefore variation in the survivability of the frogs to sexual maturity BASED on this differences in genetic and phenotypic makeup between individuals that is defined as the variation in the genetic and phenotypic makeup of the species population. The filter for Natural Selection therefore is towards increasing the size at metamorphosis and the rate in reaching metamorphosis. Now what keeps the frogs from becoming the size of Saturday afternoon horror flick stars, a combination of natural selection (predation on the easier to see large frogs, Burk 1982 Florida Entomologist 65:90-104) and sexual selection (females prefer frogs which are roughly 80% of their size Howard 1978 Evolution 32:850-871). An interesting thing in the last reference is another form of variation within both size and mating behavior of males which are both genetically determined examples of variation; namely, that of skulking. Smaller, silent males sit around larger singing male frogs and wait for females to be attracted, they then hop in and intercept the female and try to mate with her prior to the big male learning what is going on under his inflation sack. There is a stable but dynamic equilibrium present between these two variants, i.e. small and silent and large and singing, which can change through time as selective forces change. Just more variation for selection to act on.As for field crickets the dynamic is a little different. Male crickets sing and the females prefer a set wavelength to the harmonics in the song, therefore sexual selection pushes towards a more uniform wavelength (the wavelength of the song is genetically determined, as is the mating behaviors in most species, see G. Dovers work on flies for good examples). Natural selection however is pushing in the opposite direction. Female parasitic flies attack and kill crickets whose wavelength is near the preferred cricket female norm, and Natural Selection favors male crickets who sing a differently modulated song(Cade 1975, Science 190:1312-1313 and Cade 1979, Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects). The result is a narrow variance in mating song within a location but which changes from location to location based on the relative populations of female crickets and female predatory flies. More variation and selection at work Syamsu.So Syamsu, are you EVER going to try to support your assertions with real world examples and data or are you just going to do more hand-waving and proposing of theories that are not only internally inconsistent, but also ignore and are often diametrically opposed to the real world.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
TazP.S. Oh and Syamsu, in case you cry () your usual "Appeal to Authority" BS, the references are so that you can look up the DATA for it's proper correlation of the theory to the real world. That is how science is really done.[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 07-29-2003][This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 07-29-2003]

quote:

---

Out of curiosity - can men be Wiccans? Or is it a women-only club? As far as I have seen, Wicca is portrayed in the media as only women. Not that the media counts for much, of course.

---

I know this is getting way off-topic, but yes. There has to be a balance between the two. You hear a lot about the feminist aspect of things because of the desire to correct a perceived overemphasis in our culture on a male deity and male power. I did a bit of homework on the subject a while back, because I've been interested in it for a while, and one of my best sources was Holy Smoke!

quote:

---

Same goes for you, Scraf.

---

This sentence made my day.I laughed really, really hard.

Syamsu has completely avoided the question that I asked
him in this thread, so he'll probably just bleat on
going right back to the beginning now.I actually asked 'If natural selection is a description
of nature how can one justify leaving out a part of that
description (i.e. variation)?' to which the inimitable
Sy answered 'I don't care whether it's a theory or not ....'Say a lot really -- I've only asked the question directly
asn reworded in case he didn't understand, about six times
in this thread!!!!!

I completely understand. Syamsu spent a lot of time bleating (good word ) about why didn't other people put up models concerning the need for or the reason for variation in evolution. When I described a general population model based on a statistical distribution of genetic and phenotypic characteristics he complained that he did not understand it, and then went on to say that it was immaterial. A model that he does not understand is immaterial, now THAT I consider a telling statement.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

I don't think he sees the difference between natural selection
and evolution by natural selection.Ah well, maybe in time, when he starts to understand
things ...

quote:

---

I don't think he sees the difference between natural selection
and evolution by natural selection.

---

Actually he does not understand science very well at all IMO. When I tried to explain the differences between particulate genetic inheritance and the actual blending of observed phenotypic traits which can occur for certian different combinations of particulate genetic inhertance he never appeared to get it. At that is first year genetics. His understanding of many other areas which impinge on the Neo-Darwinian synthesis also are on very shaky ground, ie ecology, general bioogy, developmental biology et.

quote:

---

Ah well, maybe in time, when he starts to understand
things ...

---

You have more hope that I do in this area .------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Okay, you can all act superior to Sy if you want, but you'll be laughing out the other side of your pieholes when he delivers a rambling speech in Stockholm. I wonder who'll be laughing when he tells you suckers to go away in front of the Nobel Committee.I've compiled a list of Sy's pertinent arguments here
EvC Forum: Misc. side comments to things in other topics
and you've gotta admit he's a crack debater. I particularly like how if you don't mention a point you already made in a previous post, he assumes you've surrendered that point. That's ingenious.I'm not 'deep' enough to understand his slant on social Darwinism. However, his argument that variation should not be included in the definition of Natural Selection is just the sort of brilliant theory that only someone who knows jack shit about science would concoct. Hey, if a patent clerk can come up with a theory of relativity or two, anyone can work this scam.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

Why didn't I see it, a new paradigm. Theories which not only have no data, but go stictly AGAINST the currently available data. It is a mind-numbing new approach. And you are so right about his cracked approach to debates as well.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Why didn't I see it, a new paradigm. Theories which not only have no data, but go stictly AGAINST the currently available data. It is a mind-numbing new approach.

---

Sorry to inform you that is it neither a new paradigm nor a new approach...creationists and intelligent design proponents have been spouting out such "theories" for years.

This puts Syamsus proposal in entirely the wrong light. His method works just as well as the traditional one, mainly because it is the traditional one with some labels swapped around. Syamsu still measures changes in allele frequency, he just wants every animal with aany allelic variation in its make-up to constitute its own population. All you have to do is use Syamsus technique several times and compare all the results and you will have exactly what a normal population genetic study would have given you.

All kidding aside, Sy's scientific ignorance cripples his ability to conceptualize such complexities. Studying one and only one member of a population is easier for daisy-sniffing, but it renders such concepts as 'endangered species' or even 'species' absolutely meaningless. The only reason his ideas have garnered such attention is that other creationists at this site are nowhere near as voluble, persistent, or intractable as our man Sy.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

Maybe only genetically identicle individuals are members
of the same species.Then species can encroach on one another and cause a shift
in global allelic frequencies.