Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8972 total)
157 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (5 members, 152 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,525 Year: 7,273/23,288 Month: 1,179/1,214 Week: 191/303 Day: 31/36 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinist language
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4100 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 1 of 68 (23094)
11-18-2002 11:35 AM


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.

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.

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.

So there is a mix of scientific benefit and emotional benefit to
changing Natural Selection 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 more 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.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 11-19-2002 10:28 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 11-19-2002 12:05 PM Syamsu has responded
 Message 9 by John, posted 12-29-2002 9:41 AM Syamsu has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 2 of 68 (23225)
11-19-2002 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
11-18-2002 11:35 AM


Repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is one definition of insanity, wouldn't you agree, Syamsu?

You were thoroughly trounced on the very subject you want to bring up again after disappearing for a while. Did you think we had all forgotten?

What makes you think that we all want to go round and round in circles with you yet again?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 11-18-2002 11:35 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 11-19-2002 11:53 AM nator has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3542 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 3 of 68 (23248)
11-19-2002 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by nator
11-19-2002 10:28 AM


I guess it may be my turn to make circles out of squares but you likely more correct S, the idea of a generalized reproduction replacing NS seems far, very far, in the future if it is possible at all. A considerable change in our understanding of mutations (next mutation etc) would have to occur first. I sometimes think the formula {A x (non-universal group theory A_a x a} may be in-expressing the thread head's thought but the difference of orthoselection and orthogeneisis for say Ford's position which is not Wright's tends to crop in/up here. As far as I understand it NS is not about sex but is it allways to be associated with denial of some double signification of Mendel? This I do not know but could signal the change to some general reproduction of cross generational information transfer. Problem would then be definitionally with concept of information that Wolfram holds to as to denial (when not the thing itself) of Von Neuman's claim that computation implies entropy increase. I do not know if anyone has 'disassociated' cost of human caluculation from the freeing of reasoning nauture that atutomatic computation devices provide. This notion of general reproduction however does not seem to be coming from cybernetics however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 11-19-2002 10:28 AM nator has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3542 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 68 (23252)
11-19-2002 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
11-18-2002 11:35 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]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"[/quote]

[/B]

Let me agree with your lexical intention but disagree with grammer, no matter the semantics. Reprodutive isolation when thought "prophetically" between the cellular nature and populational instantiation need not meso evolutionally be symetrical even if micro evolutionally and macroevolutionally there is no deviation even transitively from a common symmetry per taxogeny (ie no matter the particular reproduction). "barriers" to reproduction could be topologically constrained but not topograophically and we yet do not have a reliable enough biogeography to express this in terms of whatever the genes *could* horizontally at least co-ordinate.

My papers will be next year put on their own web site and there are three components I recognize here.
1)Somatic Programs
2)Deductive Biogeography
3)Hypothesis of Nuclear Action at a Distance.

but even with all this, natural selection could still be the operative function of the change(optimal efficiency), this work may bring biology; to helping: prevent #an elite collapse of a food web< that supports ANY reproduction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 11-18-2002 11:35 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 11-20-2002 7:14 AM Brad McFall has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4100 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 5 of 68 (23340)
11-20-2002 5:44 AM


It's certainly not my intention to go around one more time with the likes of Schrafinator, or even Peter. I have just made it into a more clear and logical story for those that are not defensively minded.

Notice that Peter absolutely insists on survival, while this position is clearly made invalid in my story of the flowers.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4100 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 6 of 68 (23348)
11-20-2002 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brad McFall
11-19-2002 12:05 PM


You are just arguing something too difficult in denial of the simple basic observations.

There seem to be a lot of oaktrees.

The oaktrees reproduce.

How do the oaktrees reproduce?

What would it take to save an oaktree from extinction in some area, what would it take to have it reproduce?

That which inhibits the oaktree from reproducing are negative selective pressures, that which contributes to an oaktree reproducing are positive selective pressures.

When the environment changes the chances of reproduction of an organism may change as well. Clearly there are many cases where it is interesting to look at reproduction, without considering variational competition. Especially different environments for same sort organisms is interesting enough.

Therefore it needs to be understood to first look upon an organism in view of it's chance of reproduction, and the environment as selecting on this chance.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 11-19-2002 12:05 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 12-28-2002 9:24 PM Syamsu has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3542 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 7 of 68 (28042)
12-28-2002 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Syamsu
11-20-2002 7:14 AM


Let me get this straight and then I will address the "juglar".

You mean to intimate that I:
1)am denying something visible and/or am in some state of denial,
2)I use some conceptual response that is "too difficult" IN REACTION
3)I am *NOT* using to see the complex as simple IN AN ARGUMENT? or I am really ARguing???

and as far as oak trees go I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what Croizat meant for the distribution of these kinds more in your neck of the woods than mine as I figured Croizat's notion of "genetic block" which he tied to TREE FROGS to which if they also werent next to the discusion of Pythons I might of said something. Ineed the reprodution of Pythons, tree frogs, and Oaks if they even have any climate in common would be difficult to follow for I expect to do this some day in reading Croizat again but this is not me but rather him. So please do inform me if I got the order of you scripting correct for it is possible to read with you syntax the sentence another way around.

For instance, I, BSM, do not think I am in denial, so maybe there is justice after all. But if you are asserting this claim to some kind of psyche you would need to be more specific beacause I wont be able to get the Oaks out of Canada on the basis of only your respone and not my original.

as to selecting on the environment... I do have this idea but it is inlvolved with my ideas about electrochemical theory but not that but the classical genetics idea of "external variable" (these need not be Darwin's wedge)on Olby's notion of Mendel, not the ones generally in the books that do not recognize the binomial expansion as an EMBRYOLOIGCAL concept before being classical genetic.

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-28-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 11-20-2002 7:14 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Syamsu, posted 12-29-2002 6:36 AM Brad McFall has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4100 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 8 of 68 (28048)
12-29-2002 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Brad McFall
12-28-2002 9:24 PM


1

The basic working of the reproduction of an organism without neccesarily considering any kind of evolution, or optimality.

It's as though "evolution" has replaced "reproduction" or "survival" in Natural Selection, so as to say that organisms that do not evolve inevitably go extinct. Organisms then not having a fitness value, but a newness or uniqueness value.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 12-28-2002 9:24 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 12-29-2002 10:02 PM Syamsu has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 68 (28051)
12-29-2002 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
11-18-2002 11:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
"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?


Big deal. I don't think any of us here are strict Darwinists. Darwin is not the final word on anything.

Think about this: Would you approach an astrophysicist and criticise cosmology because Newton didn't incorporate relativity? That would be silly, yes? Newton did what he could with what he had, and worked out formulas which are still used very frequently. Other people build on it and modify it. The same has happened with Darwin's theories, yet you insist on reaching back 150+ years and harping on Darwin's book as if it were scripture. It isn't.

quote:
That Natural Selection is solely about reproduction is not clear in
standard definitions of Natural Selection.

I have never seen a definition, except those proposed by the uninformed, in which this is not made clear.

quote:
Darwinism is basicly not much use to describe fields of flowers in the
present because of the lack of variation in them.

This is silly. Walk into a field of flowers and you'll find more variation than you can record in a year.

quote:
But imagine that there would be variation in the present population of
flowers that corresponds with a difference in reproductionrate.

No need to imagine.

quote:
This doesn't actually make sense, because it's not neccesarily so that
failing to reproduce means you will live shorter.

You are right. Failing to reproduce doesn't make most critters die early, but this is your misunderstanding. A biologist wouldn't make this claim, except in particular circumstances.

quote:
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.

And eventual speciation. This fits perfectly well into standard evolutionary theory.

quote:
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.

Fine.

quote:
Natural Selection makes us focus on this one possibility of extinction
of the one by the other, leading us to neglect the other
possibilities.

No, Syamsu, for some reason it forces YOU to focus on extinction and neglect the other possibilities.

quote:
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.

What? Reproduction of a different sort? What might that be?

quote:
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.

This is again YOUR problem. Biologists don't ignore this stuff. You insist they do. Sorry, but YOU have a mental block here, not us.

quoteThe 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.
][/quote]

?????? And this is profound ?????

quote:
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.

What you suggest is impossible. How do calculate the chances of reproduction without considering the biology -- the variation-- and the environment -- the competition-- of the organism?

quote:
To add in evolution you would only
have to ask the question, does this modification contribute to
reproduction or not?

That was a long way round to get right back to the standard ToE.

quote:
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.

Sure it is-- not enough variation to adapt to the onslaught of human activity.

quote:
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.

What is the point?

quote:
I think it
would be far more meaningful that you bring your own personal
experiences to this discussion in using the different formulations.

I recall that many of us did just this several months ago and we were called racists and liars.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 11-18-2002 11:35 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Syamsu, posted 12-29-2002 11:06 AM John has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4100 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 10 of 68 (28061)
12-29-2002 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by John
12-29-2002 9:41 AM


John, you previously stated (with support from Quetzal) that you can have Natural Selection on a population that has no variation (a cloned population). Could you reference me a single science paper, or even a common biologytext that makes use of the term Natural Selection or Selection that way, without neccessarily referring to variation?

I have had other biologists explicitly and strongly denying that Natural Selection can be used that way, or is meaningful to use that way.

I don't think you appreciate how big a change this would be in the perception of Natural Selection to scientists, intellectuals and students alike.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John, posted 12-29-2002 9:41 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by John, posted 12-30-2002 9:35 AM Syamsu has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3542 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 68 (28082)
12-29-2002 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Syamsu
12-29-2002 6:36 AM


I lost my post to you, sorry, I guess I am finding out that your position is even more remote then I incline to believe. The post aforementioned was not intended as a multiple choice. You may-be are using English in a more formal manner than I am acclimated to from you. Time will tell.

for instance: I am suprised that you say "organ"isms go extinct when it is POPulations that do. Even on my formula for expanding Mendel's addition operationally does not grant me freedom to speak of confusing the individual change with the parts that may fail to change.

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-29-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Syamsu, posted 12-29-2002 6:36 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Syamsu, posted 12-29-2002 11:01 PM Brad McFall has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4100 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 12 of 68 (28090)
12-29-2002 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Brad McFall
12-29-2002 10:02 PM


Since general interest is with sorts of organisms and traits of organisms, and not sorts of population or populationtraits, I chose to say organisms going extinct.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 12-29-2002 10:02 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 12-31-2002 1:54 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 68 (28105)
12-30-2002 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Syamsu
12-29-2002 11:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
Could you reference me a single science paper, or even a common biologytext that makes use of the term Natural Selection or Selection that way, without neccessarily referring to variation?

http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/courses.hp/biol606/OldLecs/Lecture2001.01.McAdam.html

As a result, populations at equilibrium are predicted to have no genetic variation in fitness itself and therefore heritabilities (proportion of total phenotypic variation which is due to additive genetic variation) equal to zero.

quote:
I have had other biologists explicitly and strongly denying that Natural Selection can be used that way, or is meaningful to use that way.

I don't see how one could deny it, if the proposal is made clear. However, it may not be very useful as virtualy no populations have zero variation.

quote:
I don't think you appreciate how big a change this would be in the perception of Natural Selection to scientists, intellectuals and students alike.

Respectfully, I don't think you realize what a non-issue this is. The problem is a problem you have projected onto the scientific comunity at large. But in reality, it is your problem.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Syamsu, posted 12-29-2002 11:06 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Syamsu, posted 12-30-2002 10:23 AM John has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4100 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 14 of 68 (28114)
12-30-2002 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by John
12-30-2002 9:35 AM


I'm sorry, I don't see the word Selection or Natural Selection being used here as acting on a population without variation. It is used as driving a population towards having no variation, but then Natural Selection, as I read it, ceases to apply.

----
edited to add: The article starts out with: "While Natural Selection continuously increases fitness (relative contribution of a given phenotype to the next generation)"

This use of Natural Selection is inconsistent with "surviving or not surviving" (or reproduction). If the environment changed in a way which would make a population extinct, would make all organisms not survive (a scenario where variation is a non-issue), then there would obviously not be any increase of fitness of any organism through Natural Selection.
---

Do you mean to say that normally for *every* trait there is variation in a population where each variant has a different fitness?

Or do you mean to say that normally there is some variation in every population, and that this variation normally manipulates which organisms reproduce.

Respectfully, the evolution vs creation debate mainly runs on politics, not science. The scientific difference may be small, (although I don't think it is that small, seeing that you can usefully apply the simple definition with endangered species / changing environments that have no meaningful differential impact on a population), the more broader conceptual intellectual difference is huge. There is a world of difference between "reproducing or not reproducing" and "differential reproductive success of variants". In the last we are comparing, and all the judgemental language tends to come in, of one being better then the other etc. which is closely associated with Social Darwinism.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 12-30-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John, posted 12-30-2002 9:35 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by John, posted 12-30-2002 5:00 PM Syamsu has responded
 Message 17 by Brad McFall, posted 12-31-2002 2:06 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 68 (28134)
12-30-2002 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Syamsu
12-30-2002 10:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
I'm sorry, I don't see the word Selection or Natural Selection being used here as acting on a population without variation.

Syamsu, can a population of clones go extinct? Can they all die when conditions change? If yes, then selection is working on a population without variation.

What I cited for you was a paper defining 'populations at equilibrium' -- that is populations which have no significant variation and as such NS works on the group as a whole.

quote:
It is used as driving a population towards having no variation, but then Natural Selection, as I read it, ceases to apply.

Why do you read it this way? It makes no sense. You can select one variant, two variants, all variants or no variants. In all cases, it is selection. Why do you think that if a population becomes extremely uniform it is no longer subject to environmental pressures? This is what you imply in saying that NS does not apply to populations with no variation.

quote:
edited to add: The article starts out with: "While Natural Selection continuously increases fitness (relative contribution of a given phenotype to the next generation)"

And continues with:

"degrading forces such as mutation, migration and changes in the environment tend to decrease fitness."

quote:
This use of Natural Selection is inconsistent with "surviving or not surviving" (or reproduction).

Yes, but only when you cut the sentence in half and present only part of the idea. The 'degrading forces' are integral to NS.

quote:
Do you mean to say that normally for *every* trait there is variation in a population where each variant has a different fitness?

Or do you mean to say that normally there is some variation in every population, and that this variation normally manipulates which organisms reproduce.


You've said very close to the same thing in both questions. I'd go with the second though.

quote:
There is a world of difference between "reproducing or not reproducing" and "differential reproductive success of variants".

Only for you.

quote:
In the last we are comparing, and all the judgemental language tends to come in, of one being better then the other etc. which is closely associated with Social Darwinism.

In your version, there is no comparison-- can be no comparison. Without comparison there are no patterns and thus no theories and no information. You version is "Animal A mates and reproduces." THAT IS IT. Its pointless. You have a problem saying that frog A is better suited to its pond than frog B is suited to the same pond, but that is the way it works. Sorry. It isn't social Darwinism. It is 'some animals freeze to death while others do not. Those that do not freeze can be reasonably assumed to have been better adapted to the cold and are also the one who pass along there genes. Dead critters do not pass along genes.'

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Syamsu, posted 12-30-2002 10:23 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Syamsu, posted 01-01-2003 10:54 AM John has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020