Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinist forum
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 1 of 19 (26942)
12-17-2002 3:52 AM


I think the setup of this forum is Darwinist. It's creation *versus* evolution, just like it is the black moth *versus* the white moth, in Darwinist terminology.
I think many do not realise that there could possibly be several equally meritable science theories about the origin of life, just as many do not realise there can be a population where white and black moths are both fit in their shared environment.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 12-17-2002 8:48 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 5 by Peter, posted 12-19-2002 6:38 AM Syamsu has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 2 of 19 (26964)
12-17-2002 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
12-17-2002 3:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
I think the setup of this forum is Darwinist. It's creation *versus* evolution, just like it is the black moth *versus* the white moth, in Darwinist terminology.
I think many do not realise that there could possibly be several equally meritable science theories about the origin of life, just as many do not realise there can be a population where white and black moths are both fit in their shared environment.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

For the billionth time...
The Theory of Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. It only describes the processes by which life changed ONCE IT GOT HERE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 12-17-2002 3:52 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by edge, posted 12-17-2002 1:12 PM nator has not replied
 Message 4 by Syamsu, posted 12-17-2002 7:38 PM nator has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 3 of 19 (27013)
12-17-2002 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by nator
12-17-2002 8:48 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
I think the setup of this forum is Darwinist. It's creation *versus* evolution, just like it is the black moth *versus* the white moth, in Darwinist terminology.
I think many do not realise that there could possibly be several equally meritable science theories about the origin of life, just as many do not realise there can be a population where white and black moths are both fit in their shared environment.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

For the billionth time...
The Theory of Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. It only describes the processes by which life changed ONCE IT GOT HERE.

Aha, you've done it! You have proven the earth is old. There is no possible way to tell a creationist this fact so many times in only 6,000 years!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 12-17-2002 8:48 AM nator has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 4 of 19 (27093)
12-17-2002 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by nator
12-17-2002 8:48 AM


I was using origin of life in a broad sense. Please try to focus on something more meaningful in reply, in stead of nitpicking.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 12-17-2002 8:48 AM nator has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 5 of 19 (27338)
12-19-2002 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
12-17-2002 3:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
I think the setup of this forum is Darwinist. It's creation *versus* evolution, just like it is the black moth *versus* the white moth, in Darwinist terminology.
I think many do not realise that there could possibly be several equally meritable science theories about the origin of life, just as many do not realise there can be a population where white and black moths are both fit in their shared environment.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think all of the scientifically minded folk out here are
all too aware that ToE might not be the whole, complete
story of diversity of life on Earth.
ToE does fit all the evidence in a fairly simple manner
though, and bears up to scrutiny (Peter Borger's assault
included ).
Anyone who knows anything much about evolution is also
well aware that if the environment is suitable to support
both black and white moths then the variance in the population
will be pretty equal ... just down to other factors upon
which selection may or may not be acting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 12-17-2002 3:52 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 12-19-2002 12:53 PM Peter has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 6 of 19 (27373)
12-19-2002 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Peter
12-19-2002 6:38 AM


You are confusing Darwinism with the theory of evolution. Since some definitions of Natural Selection, like the one in a medical reference book I found recently, *require* the extinction of the one by the other for the theory to apply, I'm pretty sure that many knowledgeable Darwinists are more or less obtuse to the possibility of variants in a population that are both fit to reproduce.
But also the whole atmosphere on this forum is one of sometimes meaningless, and most times very aggressive opposition. There seems to be no incentive to seek common ground. Like with intelligent design, you could look for common ground by defining intelligence. And with the multi-purpose genome you could look for common ground, in arguing about the nature of DNA as a programming language, or theorizing about old DNA getting reactivated, which could both be interpreted as multi-purpose aspects of DNA. Or in arguing about creation, people could still recognize the importance of decision, of events going one way or another, as a point where something new is made. And so there are many more examples like that of needless and crude opposition on this forum, that really undermine things which are either essential in ethics (like concepts of choice), or which undermine other sciences, like molecular genetics, and artificial intelligence research.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Peter, posted 12-19-2002 6:38 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by John, posted 12-19-2002 1:23 PM Syamsu has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 19 (27376)
12-19-2002 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Syamsu
12-19-2002 12:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
You are confusing Darwinism with the theory of evolution. Since some definitions of Natural Selection, like the one in a medical reference book I found recently, *require* the extinction of the one by the other for the theory to apply,
If one or the other variants reproduces slightly more successfully than the other then the whole population slides toward the more successful variant. Where do you see a requirement for extinction?
quote:
I'm pretty sure that many knowledgeable Darwinists are more or less obtuse to the possibility of variants in a population that are both fit to reproduce.
This is the another option. If two variants reproduce with equal success, the frequency of both variants goes up within the population. And I'd say pretty much everyone in the field realizes this. I can't see how it could be missed.
quote:
But also the whole atmosphere on this forum is one of sometimes meaningless, and most times very aggressive opposition. There seems to be no incentive to seek common ground.
Ever hear of Hegel?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 12-19-2002 12:53 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Syamsu, posted 12-19-2002 2:50 PM John has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 8 of 19 (27389)
12-19-2002 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John
12-19-2002 1:23 PM


I'm talking about definitions of Natural Selection where extinction is part of the definition, sometimes also referred to as replacement or encroachment.
We are just guessing wether or not Darwinists are obtuse to the possibility of both variants being fit, but really when an influential Darwinist like Dawkins sums up modern understanding of Natural Selection as "Nature red in tooth and claw" it is reasonable to think that many a Darwinist are obtuse about the possibility of both variants being fit to reproduce.
Tell me, how did black wingcolor of moths contribute to reproduction fitness *prior* to the trees turning black? If you are not obtuse about the possibility of both variants being fit for reproduction then you should know the answer to this.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John, posted 12-19-2002 1:23 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John, posted 12-19-2002 10:17 PM Syamsu has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 19 (27428)
12-19-2002 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Syamsu
12-19-2002 2:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
I'm talking about definitions of Natural Selection where extinction is part of the definition, sometimes also referred to as replacement or encroachment.
We have examples of this happening-- kudzu for example. About 25 miles from where I now live a S. American critter called a nutria-- kind-of a rat/beaver looking thing-- is wiping out some native wildlife. It happens, so why is it a problem that it is accounted for in the ToE?
quote:
We are just guessing wether or not Darwinists are obtuse to the possibility of both variants being fit, but really when an influential Darwinist like Dawkins sums up modern understanding of Natural Selection as "Nature red in tooth and claw" it is reasonable to think that many a Darwinist are obtuse about the possibility of both variants being fit to reproduce.
"Nature red in tooth and claw" is from a poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson. It isn't even about evolution but the phrase have a ring to it and people have picked it up. Even so, it doesn't follow that evolutionary biologists don't realize that maybe two species might survive side by side.
quote:
Tell me, how did black wingcolor of moths contribute to reproduction fitness *prior* to the trees turning black?
Same as before, during, and after the black phase; the wing color is camoflage.
quote:
If you are not obtuse about the possibility of both variants being fit for reproduction then you should know the answer to this.
Do you mean there is a white moth variety and a black moth variety that compete on against the other?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Syamsu, posted 12-19-2002 2:50 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Syamsu, posted 12-19-2002 11:06 PM John has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 10 of 19 (27434)
12-19-2002 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by John
12-19-2002 10:17 PM


As before I'm talking about Natural Selection not the theory of evolution. It's not a problem except for when you require extinction of one of the variants to take place for the theory of Natural Selection to apply, then you tend to be obtuse to the possibility of extinction not taking place.
I don't see the point for you to say "nature red in tooth and claw" is from a poem. Dawkins has supported it's usage because it "sums up our modern understanding of Natural Selection admirably", not because it has some kind of ring to it. Obviously this conception will tend to lead to ignoring the possibility of both variants in a population being fit for reproduction, although you are right that the possibility of both variants being fit is not absolutely excluded in most definitions of Natural Selection.
Well, what was the black wingcolor camouflage to. The night? Shadows in the forest? The black earth? I can't remember ever reading something about how black wingcolor functioned as camouflage prior to trees turning back, in the famous peppered moth illustration of Natural Selection theory. It was simply ignored as far as I know. I think you see my point.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John, posted 12-19-2002 10:17 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by John, posted 12-20-2002 12:03 AM Syamsu has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 19 (27437)
12-20-2002 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Syamsu
12-19-2002 11:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
It's not a problem except for when you require extinction of one of the variants to take place for the theory of Natural Selection to apply
Whole groups of animals go extinct, individual animals die. So, you object to natural selection because some animals die?
quote:
then you tend to be obtuse to the possibility of extinction not taking place.
Scientists don't notice that some animals don't die? Of course they do. The idea is key to NS.
quote:
Dawkins has supported it's usage because it "sums up our modern understanding of Natural Selection admirably", not because it has some kind of ring to it.
Dawkins was flamboyant. Big deal. And what do you think he meant by "sums up." Typically, in English-- at least where I live-- to sum up an idea means something like "gloss over the messy bits in favor of something memorable." That is, say something that has a ring to it.
quote:
Obviously this conception will tend to lead to ignoring the possibility of both variants in a population being fit for reproduction
When both variants within the same interbreeding population are equally successful at reproducing the next generation will have a higher frequency of the traits associated with those two variants. If there are only two variants, the next generation is pretty much the same as the parent generation. Where is the problem?
quote:
Well, what was the black wingcolor camouflage to. The night? Shadows in the forest? The black earth?
It is hard to tell, but I think you have the whole story wrong. The moths in question are called peppered-moths. They were named such because they are speckled-- black on a white background. This speckled pattern serves as camoflage when the moth lands on the bark of certain trees. As the bark color changed due to the effects of pollution, the moths with darker marking survived, and eventually the whole population of moths turned mostly black. The polution issue was brought under control, the bark turned white again and thus the darker moths became more vulnerable and the whole population turned back to the mostly white speckled state.
In other words, there was no white variety in competition with the black variety. There was ONE variety with many individuals each with a slightly different speckle pattern.
quote:
I think you see my point.
No.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Syamsu, posted 12-19-2002 11:06 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Syamsu, posted 12-20-2002 5:04 AM John has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 12 of 19 (27458)
12-20-2002 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by John
12-20-2002 12:03 AM


When you have a definition of Natural Selection that requires extinction of one of the variants, then occurences where neither variant go extinct fall outside the framework of the theory, and by falling outside the theoretical framework they will largely be ignored.
I would be happy if Dawkins was generally considered to be just flamboyant, but I think he has much influence and his opinions are not generally dismissed as flamboyant.
I notice that you now deny that black wingcolor, or darker wingcolor has it's own reproductive fitness prior to blackened trees. I believe your saying that prior to the blackened trees the variation was just generic, not fitting anything in particular. You may be right, but I'm pretty sure you are just guessing. You are guessing at a scenario that fits your theory (or maybe just your argument), in stead of investigating first what you should know to be uncertain without investigation.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by John, posted 12-20-2002 12:03 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by John, posted 12-20-2002 9:07 AM Syamsu has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 19 (27470)
12-20-2002 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Syamsu
12-20-2002 5:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
When you have a definition of Natural Selection that requires extinction of one of the variants, then occurences where neither variant go extinct fall outside the framework of the theory, and by falling outside the theoretical framework they will largely be ignored.
Except that nothing falls outside of the theory, Syamsu. You are mistaken.
quote:
I would be happy if Dawkins was generally considered to be just flamboyant, but I think he has much influence and his opinions are not generally dismissed as flamboyant.
Dawkin's science is respected, his popular press books are not considered scientific texts. They are science for the layman-- introductory texts. I have seen this opinion stated on this forum time and again.
quote:
I notice that you now deny that black wingcolor, or darker wingcolor has it's own reproductive fitness prior to blackened trees.
I don't deny that black wingcolor had reproductive fitness, I deny that there WAS a black wingcolor but instead there were slight variations in the speckle patterns and the wing colors of the peppered moths. It should be noted that we aren't even talking about black verses white moths, but about grey verses much darker grey.
quote:
I believe your saying that prior to the blackened trees the variation was just generic, not fitting anything in particular.
I didn't say this either. The speckle pattern was camoflage. It helped the moth blend into the patterns on tree bark. I stated this quite plainly in my previous post.
quote:
You may be right, but I'm pretty sure you are just guessing.
Guess again. Or better yet, do some research on it. This part f the discussion is so basic I am having a hard time understanding how you are missing it.
quote:
You are guessing at a scenario that fits your theory (or maybe just your argument), in stead of investigating first what you should know to be uncertain without investigation.
This is primarily just handwaving, Syamsu. But the moths are just one of thousands of examples.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Syamsu, posted 12-20-2002 5:04 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Syamsu, posted 12-20-2002 10:42 AM John has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 14 of 19 (27476)
12-20-2002 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by John
12-20-2002 9:07 AM


It depends on the definition if or not something falls outside the scope of the theory or not. Would you say that endangered species fall within the scope of Natural Selection? The environment changes, and all individuals in a population becomes less adapted, less fit to reproduce. There is no significant variation in the population that deals better or worse with the change in environment. I'd say this occurence does fall under Natural Selection theory, and that all the definitions of Natural Selection that require variation for the theory to apply are faulty for making this a requirement for the theory to apply.
The standard definition of Natural Selection goes like differential reproductive success of variants. Clearly endangered species fall outside the standard definition of Natural Selection theory. So when you say that "nothing falls outside off the theory", do you then agree with me that the standard definition is false this way? Or if not then please make a list of what falls outside of Natural Selection theory. I think you will find that list to be very very long. I didn't see you make any mention of the legs of moths for instance, only wingcolor. Do the legs of moths fall outside the theory of Natural Selection? You will find that almost every organism that ever lived falls outside the scope of standard theory of Natural Selection, and many sorts of events fall outside the standard theory. What about photosynthesis of plants, does that fall within the scope of Natural Selection theory?
I've never seen anyone reference Dawkins sciencepapers, I would be interested in some webpage reference to what they are about. I think they are largely unknown. His book was not, or not only, introductory, it was positing something largely new, gene selfishness, and i've seen the popular pressbook referenced in a science paper. Again, I would be quite happy if what you said was true, but it isn't. His books are widely read within science circles by people who already have a degree and do not need any introduction.
As far as I can tell you are not mentioning the possibility that each or some colorgrades prior to the trees turning black, already conferred a reproductive fitness related to their colorgrade. The darker colored were adapted to darker environments, and the lighter to lighter environments.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John, posted 12-20-2002 9:07 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by John, posted 12-20-2002 12:15 PM Syamsu has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 19 (27489)
12-20-2002 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Syamsu
12-20-2002 10:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
Would you say that endangered species fall within the scope of Natural Selection?
Yes, of course.
quote:
The environment changes, and all individuals in a population becomes less adapted, less fit to reproduce.
The individuals don't 'become less adapted', the individuals stay the same while the environment changes around them. They may not be able to survive in that new environment, of course. I think this is what you mean. I'm just trying to be clear.
quote:
There is no significant variation in the population that deals better or worse with the change in environment.
I don't know. This you'd have to figure out case by case.
quote:
I'd say this occurence does fall under Natural Selection theory, and that all the definitions of Natural Selection that require variation for the theory to apply are faulty for making this a requirement for the theory to apply.
Variation in a population IS NOT REQUIRED for natural selection to apply. It is required for adaptation and evolution to occur, but it is not required for natural selection to occur. If there is no variation or not enough variation to matter, then the whole population is selected for or against at the same level of intensity.
quote:
The standard definition of Natural Selection goes like differential reproductive success of variants.
Not really. You are bleeding into the ToE aspects. Natural selection is "If an individual survives long enough it reproduces, if it doesn't survive long enough it does not reproduce." That's it, really. There is no need for variants at all. You could have clones-- no variation at all-- and this would still apply. This kind of variant-less population is what triggered the Irish potatoe famine. Most of the potatoes grown in the affected areas were so closely related that once a disease -- an agent of natural selection-- took hold it ran wild.
quote:
Clearly endangered species fall outside the standard definition of Natural Selection theory.
No. This is due to your misconceptions.
quote:
So when you say that "nothing falls outside off the theory", do you then agree with me that the standard definition is false this way?
No.
quote:
Or if not then please make a list of what falls outside of Natural Selection theory. I think you will find that list to be very very long.
Actually, I can't think of much that falls outside it.
quote:
I didn't see you make any mention of the legs of moths for instance, only wingcolor. Do the legs of moths fall outside the theory of Natural Selection?
I didn't see you mention moth antennae either. This is silly. You started talking about wing color so I stuck with it. Legs do not fall outside of the theory. I don't know if leg colors changed in this case though.
quote:
You will find that almost every organism that ever lived falls outside the scope of standard theory of Natural Selection, and many sorts of events fall outside the standard theory.
I can't think of any examples.
quote:
What about photosynthesis of plants, does that fall within the scope of Natural Selection theory?
The ability to photosynthesise can be selected for or against. What is your point?
quote:
I've never seen anyone reference Dawkins sciencepapers
Nothing found for Dawkins Work Biblio
quote:
As far as I can tell you are not mentioning the possibility that each or some colorgrades prior to the trees turning black, already conferred a reproductive fitness related to their colorgrade.
ummmm.... sorry, but I did mention this. The speckle patterns were camoflage.
quote:
The darker colored were adapted to darker environments, and the lighter to lighter environments.
Do you have evidence for this? Nope. Cause this isn't what actually happened. You are missing the point that the moth population was not split into two populations along color lines. Perhaps, pre-dark-trees they all were equally successful, but that dynamic changed when the trees started getting darker. When that happened the darker ones had an advantage.
I think you are envisioning something that never happened. Think about domestic cats. No two cats are the same and color varies wildy, yet do not divide themselves into populations based on color. It is one big interbreeding cat population for the most part. Color isn't a factor, or all colors are selected for or against equally. This is the situation you had before the trees turned black. Now, humans capture a cat population, then release the mostly white, and light brown ones. This leaves a captured cat population of only the darker colors. This is what happened with the moths. As the trees turned black predators ate the light colored ones, leaving only the dark. The next genration of cats will contain fewer light cats and more dark ones. If you again release the light ones, the next generation will have fewer still light cats. If you do this for long enough the captured population will no longer contain the genes for light fur. With the moths, the process of tree darkening reversed before the genes for light moths completely vanished, so the white ones made a comeback.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Syamsu, posted 12-20-2002 10:42 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Syamsu, posted 12-21-2002 12:51 AM John has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024