Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinist Creationists comments invited
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 1 of 43 (23879)
11-23-2002 9:44 AM


I'm calling for Darwinist Creationists to respond to my reformulation of Natural Selection into a general theory of reproduction, which I posted before under the name "Darwinist language". I think that creationists may be more open to criticism of Darwinism then evolutionists, and I'm hoping that to explictly invite their comments will create some response from them.
You are a Darwinist Creationist when:
1. you believe in creation as opposed to believing in macro-evolution (for instance you don't believe that an apelike creature was the ancestor of a human being)
2. you believe in micro-evolution (for instance you do believe a blue rose is the ancestor of a red rose), and describe it with Natural Selection
I would like to invite some opinion on changing the language of the
theory of Natural Selection into a general theory of reproduction,
thereby getting rid of the emotive language of Natural Selection
theory, and providing some secondary scientific benefits as well.
To illustrate what problem I am addressing, I will quote a line from
Darwin's "Origin of Species".
"and as Natural Selection works solely by and for the good of each
being, all corpereal and mental endowments will tend to progress
towards perfection." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species)
What's Darwin talking about here, a magical force of goodness leading
to perfection? Before reading further, you should try to translate
this line into more neutral scientific language yourself, to see if
this emotive language is a problem for you.
The translation should read:
"and as Natural Selection works solely by and for the reproduction of
each being, all corpereal and mental endowments will tend to become
more efficient in working towards this end."
The "good" Darwin is talking about means nothing more then
reproduction, and this is what his theory is "solely" about. This is
also well said in a phrase that Darwinists often use to make clear
what the unit of selection is. If you are familiar with Darwinists
literature you might have come across it several times:
"the organism either reproduces or fails to reproduce, and therefore
it is the unit of selection"
Again this shows that what Natural Selection is about is reproduction,
although the phrase is really about asserting the organism as the
thing that Natural Selection acts on.
That Natural Selection is solely about reproduction is not clear in
standard definitions of Natural Selection. A standard Natural
Selection story would probably go something like below:
Imagine a field of flowers....
When coming upon a field of flowers, usually Darwinists do not
actually describe the field of flowers in the present, usually
Darwinists describe only some would be ancestors like: zillions of
years ago, there were plants that did not have flowers, and a single
plant which had a rudimentary flowerpetal.etc.
Darwinism is basicly not much use to describe fields of flowers in the
present because of the lack of variation in them.
But imagine that there would be variation in the present population of
flowers that corresponds with a difference in reproductionrate.
Each flower is struggling to survive. Those that survive the longest
will reproduce the most. The blue flowers have a higher chance of
attracting insects to distribute it's pollen then the red flowers,
therefore they will on average survive longer, and reproduce more.
This doesn't actually make sense, because it's not neccesarily so that
failing to reproduce means you will live shorter. Still this is
standard Darwinian language that I'm sure you are familiar with, if you
have read a minimum of Darwinist literature.
After some time, the blue flowers compete the red flowers into
extinction, resulting in a population of uniformly blue flowers that
is more adapted to it's environment (the environment of insects).
This may happen when there are red and blue flowers, so in this sense
the Darwinian description is absolutely correct. But there are several
more possibilities of what could happen in a population of red and
blue flowers. We may find for instance that some insects prefer red
flowers, and other insects prefer blue flowers leading to a balance of
red and blue in the population. Also it is possible that the variation
mutually enhances the chance of reproduction of both blue and red
flowers. Or conversely the possiblity that this variation mutually
decreases the chance of reproduction of both sorts of flowers. etc.
Natural Selection makes us focus on this one possibility of extinction
of the one by the other, leading us to neglect the other
possibilities.
I find it also deceptive that the chance of reproduction is contrasted
solely with the chance of reproduction of a different sort in the
population. Different sorts are but one of many environmental factors
that possibly influence reproduction, and so to single out this one
environmental factor (a variational other) is being prejudicial about
what influences reproduction.
What's more the view provided of the flowers is exceptionally narrow.
By applying standard Natural Selection theory we have come to know how
the flower of a plant works in the assembly of reproductions (by
attracting insects to distribute it's pollen), but we know nothing
about the photosynthesis in the leaves of the flowery plant. Does
photosynthesis then not contribute to reproduction? Of course it does,
but it simply is ignored in Darwinist theory because it is normally
not variational. Think about applying Darwinism to whiteskinned and blackskinned people. Think about how narrowminded it is to identify a supercomplex organism like a human being just in terms of the pigment
of one organ as Darwinists do, and then to note the one as "better" then the other.
What seems peaceful at first, a field of flowers, is by Darwinist
terminology reduced to a murderous deathstruggle between reds and
blues.
You shouldn't have these problems with a general theory of
reproduction in my experience. If you would just look at the flowers
in terms of a possible future event of it's reproduction, and any
competition with different sorts of flowers as incidental to the
possibility of that event. Remember the only reason that I imagined
there to be red and blue flowers, is because the standard formulation
of Natural Selection requires there to be this sort of variation for
the theory to apply. This is not required by a general theory of
reproduction.
The logic of a general theory of reproduction says that: since all
organisms die, only through continued reproduction are there any
organisms left in the world.
Compare this to watches, then I would have a general theory of
"telling the time" for watches. The logic of the watches theory then
becomes that: only because watches "tell the time" are there any
watches left in the world. If watches would stop telling the time we
would disregard them, and they would all be destroyed eventually.
This maybe clarifies something about Darwinist terminology, that you
can equally say reproductive selection, in stead of natural selection,
applied to organisms. Similarly you can also talk about "telling the
time" selection, in Darwinist terminology applied to watches.
The word selection in Natural Selection does not mean selecting
between two different organisms, but it means selection between the
event of reproducing, and not reproducing. Similarly selection of
watches happens on the event of the watches either telling the time,
or the watches not telling the time.
What is maybe difficult to grasp is that it is already very meaningful
to look upon organisms in view of their chance of reproduction,
without specially considering variation or competition. To answer the
question, how does this organism reproduce? Answers most everything
you want to know about an organism. To add in evolution you would only
have to ask the question, does this modification contribute to
reproduction or not?
Take for example the current mass extinction of species. The standard
theory of Natural Selection doesn't apply here, because variation in a
population is not at issue. A general theory of reproduction does
apply, because it always applies, and gives you the right focus. To
focus on the continued reproduction, rather then on individuals
surviving which standard Natural Selection theory might lead you to
focus on. Or otherwise consider how zookeepers have been quite able to
keep individuals alive longer then they normally would be in the wild,
but only recently have they begun to tackle the problem of making them
reproduce.
Notice that a general theory of reproduction covers the
scientific content of standard Natural Selection theory, but it puts
it in a broader perspective where other scenario's besides variational competition apply. This change is not about changing the scientific content. There is a mix of scientific benefit and emotional benefit to changing Natural Selection this way into a general theory of reproduction. The scientific benefits are maybe small in my experience, but the emotional benefits, to reinterpet the nasty Darwinist language in terms of the broader and neutral perspective of a general theory of reproduction, are great.
Maybe it needs psychological research to prove that the differences in
perception are generally significant, but since that is not available
you should test the different formulations in your own intellectual
experiences. I don't think it's wise to speculate and theorize too
much about how other people would perceive the difference betwen
Natural Selection and a general theory of reproduction. I think it
would be far more meaningful that you bring your own personal
experiences to this discussion in using the different formulations.
- to view in terms of standard Natural Selection theory means to sort
a population in two groups identified by one differing characteristic, and to view this characteristic as being the cause of the other characteristic's eventual extinction through the one having higher rates of reproduction then the other in an environment of limited resources.
- to view in terms of a general theory of reproduction, is to view how an organism reproduces in relation to it's environment. (and any competition, change of environment, variation, mutation etc. as incidental to that view. incidental meaning there's not always meaningful competition, there's not always meaningful variation etc.)
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Peter, posted 11-25-2002 7:55 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 2 of 43 (24187)
11-25-2002 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
11-23-2002 9:44 AM


I know ... I know ... I'm not a creationist but I just
couldn't resist answering this one (again).
Although this time your example and objections have supported
NOT viewing NS in terms of reproduction.
You have rightly pointed out that the propagation capabilties
(i.e. reproductive capability) of the two varieties do not
contribute to survival of the individual plant.
You have also suggested that a change in the environment (insects
that like only blues changing to mix of insects some of whom
like red and others blue) will have an effect on the colour
ratios iin the field.
BUT you have avoided a line of reasoning that says that there
is a creature that just loves to eat red flowers but not blue
ones. What would be the effect of this on populations, and how
is it explainable solely in terms of reproduction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 11-23-2002 9:44 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Syamsu, posted 11-25-2002 10:27 AM Peter has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 3 of 43 (24215)
11-25-2002 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Peter
11-25-2002 7:55 AM


I'm glad you responded, most of all because it keeps the subject on the listalltopics page...
Red flowers will have decreased chance of reproduction in relation to the creature eating them, and blue flowers will have increased chance of reproduction, in relation to there being less red flowers.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Peter, posted 11-25-2002 7:55 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Peter, posted 11-27-2002 6:22 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 4 of 43 (24553)
11-27-2002 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Syamsu
11-25-2002 10:27 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
I'm glad you responded, most of all because it keeps the subject on the listalltopics page...
Red flowers will have decreased chance of reproduction in relation to the creature eating them, and blue flowers will have increased chance of reproduction, in relation to there being less red flowers.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As soon as you bring in the 'chance of reproduction', you are opening
up the field to consider more than just the 'event of reproduction.
In some ways the mechanisms etc. do not change by rephrasing,
but the need to re-phrase is a little hazy to me (as I'm sure
you noticed before )
In my previous post the major reason for dominance of one
colour over the over becomes a matter of expected survival
chance ... i.e. I am more likely to survive if I am red than
if I am blue, therefore over time, red flowers become the
dominant hue in the field.
That's as good a description of classical natural selection
as I have heard.
I agree that there are also 'sexual selection' criteria, but
then Darwin also pointed that out when he orginated the theory
(or formalised it I guess).
I do not believe that survival instincts are motiovated
by the need to reproduce, but that rather those with better
survival instincts DID survive to reproduce and pass on that
chracteristic to their young.
The two things support one another but are not directly
related.
I doubt that a gazelle runs from a cheetah because it thinks
'Oh no! If I get eaten I won't be able to perpetuate the
species!!'
I certainly don't think that way when I'm running away from
a howling mob with pitchforks and torches ... Ok so that's
never actually heppened to me (yet ) but hopefully you
asee why I separate survival and reproduction (although
both are needed for evolution (or just plain perpetuation)
of species).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Syamsu, posted 11-25-2002 10:27 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Syamsu, posted 11-27-2002 2:52 PM Peter has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 5 of 43 (24629)
11-27-2002 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Peter
11-27-2002 6:22 AM


To deal with your hazyness about why the theory of Natural Selection sould be rephrased.
The problems of Darwinism:
1 - the narrow view of organisms that Darwinism leads to, by Darwinists typically identifying an organism by one trait ie. identifying a moth by it's wingcolor (peppered moth), or for instance identifying a supercomplex human being by the color of one organ. Through Darwinism we have come to know about the wingcolor of moths, but nothing much else about the moth.
2 - the judgementalism in Darwinist language saying one is better, more succesfull, then the other, which is emotionally repugnant
3 - the theory almost never applies to organisms because of the lack of variational competition in most populations. it's not much use when we want to save some specie, when we need to know how much light a plant needs for reproduction for instance.
4 - goalbased thinking because of reference to struggle(I have not worked this out in my original post, but any struggle neccesarily requires some goal to be struggling for)
I don't understand what you are saying with survival. In your previous post it came down to reproduction, as I've shown, not survival. It always comes down to reproduction, because reproduction overcomes death.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Peter, posted 11-27-2002 6:22 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Peter, posted 12-11-2002 7:07 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 6 of 43 (26276)
12-11-2002 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Syamsu
11-27-2002 2:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
To deal with your hazyness about why the theory of Natural Selection sould be rephrased.
The problems of Darwinism:
1 - the narrow view of organisms that Darwinism leads to, by Darwinists typically identifying an organism by one trait ie. identifying a moth by it's wingcolor (peppered moth), or for instance identifying a supercomplex human being by the color of one organ. Through Darwinism we have come to know about the wingcolor of moths, but nothing much else about the moth.

Examples intended to elaborate aspects of evolutionary theory
do tend to be narrow. That's deliberate in order to illustrate
a point. It's often easier to describe a complex theory in
terms of simpler, yet illustrative and relevent models.
Evolution is not concerned with understanding individual
organisms, but the process(es) by which diversity of life
has emerged.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

2 - the judgementalism in Darwinist language saying one is better, more succesfull, then the other, which is emotionally repugnant

I don't believe I have come across ToE descriptions that
claim that any animal is 'better' than another.
Saying that one species is more successful than another
with respect to perpetuation is not an emotive judgement,
but a simple statement of observed fact.
In the flower field if red becomes dominant we say it is the
more succesful species in terms of species survival ... no
judgement of better-ness, just a plain observed fact.
For example, in Darwinian terms all of the 'races' of man
are equal, because they are equally successful at perpetuating
themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

3 - the theory almost never applies to organisms because of the lack of variational competition in most populations. it's not much use when we want to save some specie, when we need to know how much light a plant needs for reproduction for instance.

Evolution NEVER applies to organisms .... organisms cannot
evolve only species can.
Conservation is an entirely different subject matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

4 - goalbased thinking because of reference to struggle(I have not worked this out in my original post, but any struggle neccesarily requires some goal to be struggling for)

All organsims have a goal (an even in your stated thinking you
imply this) ... that is to survive and produce offspring.
BUT that is just one weltenshaung (world view), and is a way of
expressing an interpretation of the way nature works.
Animals do struggle to survive and reproduce ... you can see that
happening ... we get into a whole instinct/intellect
debate then which is not relevent to evolution.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

I don't understand what you are saying with survival. In your previous post it came down to reproduction, as I've shown, not survival. It always comes down to reproduction, because reproduction overcomes death.

Suppose all plants capable of bearing blue flowers were eaten
as young shoots because they tasted good. Their absence from
the field is related solely to their survival rate, not
their reproduction rate.
An simplified illustration of the need to treat survival and
reproduction separately admittedly, but ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Syamsu, posted 11-27-2002 2:52 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Syamsu, posted 12-12-2002 9:15 AM Peter has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 7 of 43 (26405)
12-12-2002 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peter
12-11-2002 7:07 AM


The species that are currently in danger of becoming extinct, are less adapted to their environment, they have become less fit, they are being selected out, etc. I think it's safe to say that you can understand the usage of words like this. But still somehow you think it's wrong to use words that way, because then you would have to reinterpret your standard Darwinist terminology as variational competition. A mere 1 of *many* possible subsets to a general theory of reproduction.
The flowers that get eaten have a reproduction chance approaching zero. I don't see how your example neccecitates fewing flowers in terms of survival.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peter, posted 12-11-2002 7:07 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Peter, posted 12-18-2002 2:27 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 8 of 43 (27133)
12-18-2002 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Syamsu
12-12-2002 9:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
The species that are currently in danger of becoming extinct, are less adapted to their environment, they have become less fit, they are being selected out, etc. I think it's safe to say that you can understand the usage of words like this. But still somehow you think it's wrong to use words that way, because then you would have to reinterpret your standard Darwinist terminology as variational competition. A mere 1 of *many* possible subsets to a general theory of reproduction.
The flowers that get eaten have a reproduction chance approaching zero. I don't see how your example neccecitates fewing flowers in terms of survival.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

If one set of flowers are largely wiped out before they can
reproduce, then the reason for their low reproductive chance
is directly linked to their survival rate.
Survival acts as a filter on the population and needs to be
considered separately from reproduction.
An animal can have everything it needs for successful reproduction
within it's environment ... but get eaten by a wandering lion
before it gets the chance.
The effect of survival on populations is not a reproduction
issue.
And in terms of conservation I am in two minds ... if creatures
cannot adapt to their environment why should they survive ...
but if those changes are wrought by man should we not correct
them and save those creatures.
It's an unnerving problem once you try to remove one's
emotional response to the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Syamsu, posted 12-12-2002 9:15 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Syamsu, posted 12-19-2002 5:46 AM Peter has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 9 of 43 (27329)
12-19-2002 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Peter
12-18-2002 2:27 AM


I think it's probable that the species currently going extinct would have marketable economic value in the near future, as a matter of interest for genetechnology.
Anyway, I wasn't talking about if we should conserve or not at all. I was just talking about wordusage, where Darwinists use weird definitions for fitness, being adapted, and selection etc. My usage of those words in the previous post is *wrong* bij Darwinist standards, although at the same time perfectly comprehensible to anyone, including you.
Your insistence on survival is not an argument. You can disregard it as I've shown. You apply the survival filter, but then of course you are left with those that do survive but do *not* reproduce, so you still need to apply the reproduction filter after you applied the survival filter. Occam's razor says you can just do away with the survival filter, it adds no meaning to the equation.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Peter, posted 12-18-2002 2:27 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Peter, posted 12-19-2002 6:27 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 10 of 43 (27335)
12-19-2002 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Syamsu
12-19-2002 5:46 AM


Darwin pointed out that there is 'survival selection' and
'sexual selection' ... that is females choose males (or
vice versa) based upon some species specific criteria.
Survival is a higher order filter than sexual selection.
Even the 'ugliest' of creatures WILL mate if there are none
others left to mate with (well one other obviously )
Genetic drift will not drive evolution, survivability can.
By insisting on neglecting survival as a consideration seems to
be an attempt to justify not accepting ToE by removing the
major driving force behind it.
It's kind of like saying 'Well forget about the engine in your
car, now tell me how is that a conveyance?'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Syamsu, posted 12-19-2002 5:46 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Syamsu, posted 12-19-2002 12:07 PM Peter has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 11 of 43 (27370)
12-19-2002 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Peter
12-19-2002 6:27 AM


I think it's better to ignore Darwin, if you want to have a scientific theory. Darwin, like Dawkins, like Haeckel, like Lorenz etc. writings are simply too prozaic to be used as science. Their works are generally known to be prozaic, this is not just me saying that. You might use elements from their writings to construct a scientific theory, but I think it's mistaken to refer to their work as science theories in themselves.
Again, you have no argument. I am not ignoring survival, I am just not being prejudicial towards survival. Just like I am not being prejudicial towards variation, or competition among variants.
Sometimes the environment changes, like now with the endangered species, so that a population becomes less adapted to their environment. Darwinist focus on competition between variants, leads to ignore scenario's like this. Again, there is an enormous amount what you ignore with standard Darwinism, I refer you to the earlier posts in this thread. You really show no understanding of my arguments when you now trot out that I'm supposedly ignoring something. You will likely end up ignoring reproduction by focusing on survival, while focusing on reproduction like I do, will not lead to "meaningfully" ignoring survival. That's because survival apart from reproduction is much meaningless to look at, since in the near future all organisms will die. So focusing on reproduction includes survival. ( Except maybe for things like elderly organisms, who have no chance of reproduction at all. But even so for these elderly organisms I think it is meaningful knowledge to know that they will not reproduce and inevitably die, although on the other hand I think it's questionable to view things in terms of properties they don't have.)
I think my discussion with you has come to the point, where I should politely ask you to change your opinion, and to agree with me that a general theory of reproduction has merit over a Darwinist theory of Natural Selection. If you would look to my previous posts, you should be able all to find answers for all your arguments there.
When you argue like "seems to be an attempt to justify", "kind of like" etc. then it should be clear to yourself also that you have run out of content for your arguments. You are just arguing on suspicions and the authority of established science, but there is no real content that I can see.
Tell me, if you would have a biology textbook, with a chapter on a generaly theory of reproduction, would you accept it, or find it faulty? In this chapter competition among variants would show up as one paragraph (Darwinism), and a change in environment leading to less adapted organisms would be in another paragraph (as with endangered species), and so on. The thing that binds all paragraphs together in the chapter is to view organisms in terms of their chance of reproduction. In this way a cohesive and broad perspective on Nature is attained, that is flexible to deal with the sometimes extreme unicity and complexity of the organic world.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Peter, posted 12-19-2002 6:27 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Peter, posted 01-06-2003 2:42 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 12 of 43 (28471)
01-06-2003 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Syamsu
12-19-2002 12:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
I think it's better to ignore Darwin, if you want to have a scientific theory. Darwin, like Dawkins, like Haeckel, like Lorenz etc. writings are simply too prozaic to be used as science. Their works are generally known to be prozaic, this is not just me saying that. You might use elements from their writings to construct a scientific theory, but I think it's mistaken to refer to their work as science theories in themselves.

Could you define what you mean by scientific theory please, I feel
it may be a little different to my understanding of the phrase.
Darwin set out to explain the diversity of life on earth (an observation).
He made field studies, collecting data on species that showed diversity.
He found a link between variation and environment.
He then theorised that natural selection and descent with
modification were sufficient to explain his observations.
I don't see how that isn't a scientific theory ... you cannot
model everything mathematically.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

Again, you have no argument. I am not ignoring survival, I am just not being prejudicial towards survival. Just like I am not being prejudicial towards variation, or competition among variants.

Studying animals in terms of reproduction does not illuminate
the issues surrounding diversity of life on earth.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

Sometimes the environment changes, like now with the endangered species, so that a population becomes less adapted to their environment. Darwinist focus on competition between variants, leads to ignore scenario's like this.

In what way?
And how does Darwinism focus on competition?
The peppered moths were not in competition with one another
in that oft quoted example of NS. Some were more likely to
be eaten ... but they weren't in a direct competition to be
eaten.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

Again, there is an enormous amount what you ignore with standard Darwinism, I refer you to the earlier posts in this thread. You really show no understanding of my arguments when you now trot out that I'm supposedly ignoring something. You will likely end up ignoring reproduction by focusing on survival,

Evolution is about the way in which species change over time ...
by definition this includes and requires reproduction, but there
is more to it that reproduction.
By stating that something is a ''general theory of reproduction''
and then claiming that such a theory includes everything that
evolutionary theory already covers seems convoluted to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
while focusing on reproduction like I do, will not lead to "meaningfully" ignoring survival.

How do you know that ... by neglecting it as an area of
significant worth/study you can easily miss important
explanation.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

That's because survival apart from reproduction is much meaningless to look at, since in the near future all organisms will die.

Survival chance can be meaningfully looked at sans reproduction.
Factors affecting an individuals survival play a key role in
understanding the evolutionary explanation of diversity of
life.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

So focusing on reproduction includes survival.

How?
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

( Except maybe for things like elderly organisms, who have no chance of reproduction at all. But even so for these elderly organisms I think it is meaningful knowledge to know that they will not reproduce and inevitably die, although on the other hand I think it's questionable to view things in terms of properties they don't have.)

Survival only means maximising life-span.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

I think my discussion with you has come to the point, where I should politely ask you to change your opinion, and to agree with me that a general theory of reproduction has merit over a Darwinist theory of Natural Selection. If you would look to my previous posts, you should be able all to find answers for all your arguments there.

I've been over this with you at some depth over some time
now ... and have seen a subtle shift in your arguments away
from saying that NS is false, and that survival isn't important
to a stance where survival is encompassed by GToR. If you continue
as objectively as you can you will start to see that Darwinist
ToE addresses the concerns of diversity of life, and that
conservation is an entirely separate issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

When you argue like "seems to be an attempt to justify", "kind of like" etc. then it should be clear to yourself also that you have run out of content for your arguments. You are just arguing on suspicions and the authority of established science, but there is no real content that I can see.

I'm English ... I was just being polite
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

Tell me, if you would have a biology textbook, with a chapter on a generaly theory of reproduction, would you accept it, or find it faulty?

As a trained researcher I don't accept any work on it's own.
I have spent many years discussing the pros and cons of
ToE as well as debating/discussing creationist view points.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

In this chapter competition among variants would show up as one paragraph (Darwinism), and a change in environment leading to less adapted organisms would be in another paragraph (as with endangered species), and so on. The thing that binds all paragraphs together in the chapter is to view organisms in terms of their chance of reproduction. In this way a cohesive and broad perspective on Nature is attained, that is flexible to deal with the sometimes extreme unicity and complexity of the organic world.

Your distinction between organisms changing and the environment
changing is simply stating the two possible contributors that
provoke natural selection ... the key is 'change'.
Something changes, and it's a whole new ball game.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Syamsu, posted 12-19-2002 12:07 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Syamsu, posted 01-06-2003 10:05 AM Peter has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 13 of 43 (28489)
01-06-2003 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peter
01-06-2003 2:42 AM


I looked it up, both you and Quetzal have apparently changed your minds about variation being a requirement for Natural Selection to apply. You first said it is a requirement, and now you both say it isn't. I'm thinking you have both changed your mind on account of what I wrote, in an almost subconscious way. You are both now outside the mainstream of science, you will not find much of any support for your position on the web. There are no definitions of Natural Selection on the web which do not require variation that I can find. So I guess you need to consider your position now, and actually argue which definition of Natural Selection is better. The one that requires variation or the one which doesn't require it.
http://EvC Forum: Falsification theory of Natural Selection -->EvC Forum: Falsification theory of Natural Selection
"Natural selection only operates when there is an environmental
pressure which one variant can exploit more effectively than
another." (Peter)
"Perhaps a recap may be in order. Natural selection follows from these basic assumptions:
1. There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness, visual acuity." (Quetzal)
I don't think I've changed my mind about survival being faulty. It is faulty to use for selection because all organisms die. Of course you can define something anyway you want, but to exclude reproduction, or to look to survival outside of what benefit it has for reproduction, makes your definition unusuable to look at reproduction with modification (evolution).
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peter, posted 01-06-2003 2:42 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-06-2003 10:51 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 24 by Peter, posted 01-08-2003 3:01 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 43 (28494)
01-06-2003 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Syamsu
01-06-2003 10:05 AM


quote:
There are no definitions of Natural Selection on the web which do not require variation that I can find
I've just googled "natural selection definition" and the first result I got was:
The process by which individuals’ inherited needs and abilities are more or less closely matched to resources available in their environment, giving those with greater "fitness" a better chance of survival and reproduction.
PE
------------------
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense - Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Syamsu, posted 01-06-2003 10:05 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Syamsu, posted 01-07-2003 1:43 AM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 15 of 43 (28560)
01-07-2003 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Primordial Egg
01-06-2003 10:51 AM


Greater fitness only can refer to differing variants, not clones, in standard theory of Natural Selection.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-06-2003 10:51 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 01-07-2003 2:31 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 17 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-07-2003 6:59 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024