Destroying Darwinism

This is just another reformulation of my old argument about cutting variation from the definition of Darwinism. Reformulated to try to appeal to some creationist out there, who has an interest in getting rid of Darwinism.I will now shortly explain what is wrong with Natural Selection theory. You may know the famous example of the peppered moth in industrialized England. The Darwinist story goes as follows:Soot from industries makes the white trees turn black, which results in white moths losing the camouflage of the white trees. They are consequently preyed upon more by birds. The black moths in the moth population have an excellent camouflage for the blackened trees so they tend to be preyed upon less then they were preyed upon before. As the white moths get killed before reproduction more then black, gradually the color of moths turns from white to black. The population becomes adapted to the new environment.What is wrong here should be obvious, when trying some theoretical experiments to find out the workings of the theory of Natural Selection.Q) What for instance, if there were no black moths in the population?A) If the population were not varying then the theory of Natural Selection would simply not apply.You could add a black moth into an all white population, and then the theory of Natural Selection would start to apply to the population. If you take away the black moth, then the theory of Natural Selection would stop to apply.The theory of Natural Selection is then shown to be very different from all other theories in science. For instance gravity theory doesn't start and stop to apply to planets at the appearance or disappearance of some planet in the systen. Gravity theory applies continuously.There has to be some justification for including differential variation in the definition, for it to be scientifically valid. Some justification that shows what extra meaningful knowledge is provided by including variation in the definition. Let's see, we can describe white moths being adapted to white trees without referring to variation. We can describe black moths being adapted to black trees still, even if there are white moths in the population also. When you get down to it, it seems very hard to justify including variation, since we can do so much without it. In fact to include variation is about as meaningful as to have a theory of different length of buildings for instance. The Eiffeltower is about 350 meters high, the tower of Pisa is about 50 meters high. The differential buildinglength of the Eiffeltower and the tower of Pisa is then 350/50=7. And so with the moths we might come to conclude that the differential reproductive success of white moths and black moths is 7. But, so what, who cares. The answer is nobody cares. However interesting it may be to know the reproductive success of white moths as their wingcolor relates to white trees, and to know the reproductive success of black moths likewise, that then doesn't neccesarily makes it interesting to compare the reproductive rates of white and black moths. Remember that when there is no variation in the population, then the reproductive rate of the white moth would be completely ignored, unseen by the theory of Natural Selection. But is it then not interesting to know that if trees turn black that then white moths will be decimated by birds? Of course it is interesting, meanignful knowledge about the moths, but it is completely ignored in Natural Selection because there isn't any variation in the population. So Natural Selection is focused on this comparison, which we should believe is very important, but how this is important is still a mystery. Maybe the importance of this comparing has something to do with competition. But look at the moth example again if competition between white and black plays a major role there. When the trees turn black then the white moths are decimated by the birds. So one could argue, the birds are fully fed on white moths, so that they don't eat so many black moths anymore. When the destruction of the one moth gives a better chance at reproductin for the other moth, then u might say there is a competitve relationship between them. But that answer on balance would be wrong, because the increase in black moths is not due to the decrease in white moths. The increase in black moths in due to there being more black trees for them to have camouflage on. If all white moths were captured without making the trees black then there wouldn't be such a significant increase in black moths. To fundamentally associate competition with a difference structure is of course also flawed. Organisms that are exactly the same would tend to go for exactly the same resources, and that is where competition is the most intense. When there is a difference then that gives reason to suppose that the competition is less.So by this reasoning it is entirely legitimate to say that the theory of Natural Selection is invalid. I should add though that to look at how white wingcolor of moths contributes to reproduction in relation to white trees is valid, but of course there is no need to refer to variation for that.This technical invalidation by itself would not destroy Darwinism yet. However when it seen that the comparitive part in Darwinism generally leads to judgementalism among Darwinists, like saying one is better then the other, then there should be enough motivation to get rid of it. It is of course very embarassing to have it be found that Konrad Lorenz, one of the more influential Darwinian scientists, is shown to have used the theory to propagandize Nazism, and to have personally participated in ethnic cleansing himself. And in conjuction with this fundamental flaw in the theory that facillitates this kind of political manipulation on the part of scientists, it should lead to the collapse of the theory. I think it can be persuasively shown that there is a pattern of corruption among Darwinian scientists to manipulate the politics and or religious beliefs of it's audience by their usage of the "is better then" language in Darwinism. Not always has this been to support Nazi or racist ideas, but you would be very hardpressed to find a single influential Darwinian scientist whose political and religious views are not intimately interwoven with their personal conception of Darwinism in their socalled works of science. Darwin himself shows that most clearly in "Descemt of Man" where he goes to talk about when it is right to marry, and talks about when genocide is moral, and talks about what the highest state of morality is. The book is defacto a sort of bible. Other examples include Haeckel and his monism and racism, Galton and his eugenics, Dawkins and his atheism - antireligionism, which are all apparently fed by their conception of Darwinism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Natural selection isn't a theory. It's a mechanism generalized from the phenomenon that there's a statistical difference in which organisms survive to reproduce correlated with the "usefulness" of certain traits.Natrual selection doesn't lead to people cosidering one form or race as "better than another", except in a misunderstanding of the mechanism. In terms of natural selection the poverty-line mother with 5 kids is "better" than the rich couple with no kids.The bible has been used to justify racism as well; should we get rid of it, too?

No one, apart from you, suggests that natural selection would not be occurring in a population of uniformly white pepper moths, all they are saying is that the melanic trait could not be being selected for if it was not already present. Similarly gravity will not affect a body which is non existent.

You are not making any sense.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Natural Selection in it's standard definition, is not a mechanism, it is a comparison.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

What part did you not understand?

Natural selection is not a comparison. It's a perfectly valid working mechanism that fits not only what we see in the world today, but also the prehistoric fossil record.Natural selection occurs when environmental pressures cause a particular trait or characteristic to be more favourable - such as gazelles being able to run faster, let's say, and get away from predators easier. The pressure of predation on the gazelles ensures that it is far more likely for the faster animals to survive, as the slower ones are killed and eaten - therefore the faster animals are more likely to breed and the proportion of faster animals increases overall. As this pressure continues to work on the gazelle population, over time the average speed of any individual animal increases because its environment constantly selects the most favourable form for survival. When environmental pressures work on any species over a long period of time, a combination of favourable traits may be enhanced to the point that the original animals and their descendents do not resemble each other sufficiently for them to be grouped together in the same species - and the "new" animals are defined separately. This is how new species appear - natural selection, over long periods, causes evolution.If you don't feel this doesn't work properly, or doesn't fully explain certain things, do you have any thoughts on an alternative scientific mechanism?Incidently I didn't quite understand what you're getting at in your original post; some clarification would be nice.ThanksThe Rock Hound

Syamsu, I have to say that you are at least consistent. A couple or errors in your logic, pretty much the same ones which you make every time but I will point them out anyway.
1)

quote:

---

For instance gravity theory doesn't start and stop to apply to planets at the appearance or disappearance of some planet in the systen. Gravity theory applies continuously.

---

Yes but is the density of materials did not vary so much then the space-time continuim would be flat and featureless. What you really see is a great deal of variation in density across space and therefore a great deal of variation in gravitational fields, much like you see in a topological map of biospace. And evolution via natural selection does not appear and dissapear as you state, however its effects vary according to the biospace, rather like the changing level of gravitation depending on the varying curvature of space-time.2) this one is just plain bad

quote:

---

Let's see, we can describe white moths being adapted to white trees without referring to variation. We can describe black moths being adapted to black trees still, even if there are white moths in the population also.

---

Setting aside the fact that you are ONLY looking at variation in one small phenotypic trait. First you state a case with no variation, then you state a case with variation but ignore the consequences of the variation. With a start of 50 50 variation, if you kill off 99% of variation one (lets call them white moths) then you have a ratio of 1 to 100 breeding animals of ONE variation. You try the math. Now, if there are white and black trees and white and black moths selection based on variation in this trait will not occur. Selection will occur on the other multitude of traits. IT can occur if animals move into other demes (the answer to your error w.r.t. mass extitinction and species radiation). Variation is the raw material that changes comes from.3) Buildings. Here you flat out demonstrate your lack of undrstanding of how variation and selection work. You have a 350 meter and a 50 meter building. If your builders all live in the top floor of the building that they design and weather repeatedly knocks down buildings over 100 meters guess what will happen to building height over time.As to competition
No, in this case you would say that both are compeeting with their environment, not each other. One just does a better job.As to the misuse of Darwin, how about we discuss the misuse of religion whether it be Islam, Christianity or Judeism? It is pretty much teh same and has occured for a much longer time. SO, do we outlaw these religions because of what use peple have made of them?

Obviously there is no stated requirement for qualititive variation in gravity theory, as there is in the standard theory of Natural Selection. You employ a tone of reasonability, for the hilarious absurd position that gravity theory and natural selection theory are structurally similar. You, and Darwinists generally could make good lawyers. Since variation is required for Natural Selection to apply by the standard definition of it in science, NS then stops to apply when there is no differential variation present. That is simply a consequence of including variation in the definition, that the theory stops to apply when there is no variation.There is no consequence to variation, except in cases of competition between variants, replacement, or encroachment. The consequence in the moth example is from the relationship of white wingcolor and white trees, and black wingcolor and black trees. There is no consequence to the Eiffeltower being 7 times higher then the tower of Pisa. Obviously it is incredibly stupid to think like there is a consequence to that as you do. Your kind of logic is a common trick used in advertising.Obviously you have no intention of seriously discussing either Christianity, Judaism or Darwinism and how it affects the intellectual climate of opinion.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

....."more favourable"....That is a comparison. It is not a mechanism.Well I just hope that u got the absurdity of the stop and start characteristic of Natural Selection theory, if u didn't understand everything. That when you add a black moth to an all white population, then the theory starts to apply, and when you take it away then it stops to apply. Obviously you are prejudiced for evolutionism, because with any other theory I believe you wouldn't accept such an absurdity. Or maybe you would accept anything that is part of the status quo.....hmmmmmm.Actually, it is generally acknowledged that Natural Selection can happen without variation, however Darwinists still insist on including variation in the definition. So I feel justified in attacking Natural Selection as though it included variation. The duplicity about including variation in the definition is the responsibility of Darwinists, not mine.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Natural selection isn't a theory!Do you know what I mean when I say this? I'm honestly asking you. I bring it up because you agreed in your reply to me that it wasn't a theory, but here you are calling it a theory again.

Please tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that Natural Selection isn't a theory.This is just semantics, I don't believe you can ever hope to make any substantial point with it, but anyway, Natural Selection is generally acknowledged as a theory, by Darwinists also, and this use of the word theory is proper language AFAIK.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Please tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that Natural Selection isn't a theory.

​

This is just semantics, I don't believe you can ever hope to make any substantial point with it, but anyway, Natural Selection is generally acknowledged as a theory, by Darwinists also, and this use of the word theory is proper language AFAIK.

---

If you've talked to "Darwinists" who say that NS is a "theory," they're sorely misinformed.Natural selection is a mechanism by which evolution occurs. There is no "natural selection theory." I'd have to agree with crashfrog that you don't understand the implications of calling something a "theory."

quote:

---

Actually, it is generally acknowledged that Natural Selection can happen without variation, however Darwinists still insist on including variation in the definition. So I feel justified in attacking Natural Selection as though it included variation. The duplicity about including variation in the definition is the responsibility of Darwinists, not mine.

---

Please tell me how Natural Selection can happen without variation. If everything was exactly the same (no variation), each would have the same chance of survival--and therefore, no evolution could occur. Variation is at the root of evolution--so how could you leave it out of the definition?

quote:

---

Since variation is required for Natural Selection to apply by the standard definition of it in science, NS then stops to apply when there is no differential variation present. That is simply a consequence of including variation in the definition, that the theory stops to apply when there is no variation.

---

Problem is with your white/black moth proposal--even if there were only white or only black moths present, that doesn't mean there is no variation. That just means there's no variation in the genes that encode the pigment. There would still be variation in other areas which could influence survival. Therefore, natural selection would still be at work, and evolution would still occur.

I suppose it would need a very picky definition. Is it NS if a landslide (a natural event) falls on some unlucky animal?Was the Chixilub impact Natual selection?The selection can happen purely randomly and if there is no variation it won't contribute to any change in alle frequency but it's "selection" of a sort I guess.Other than that impossible condition (a population in the wild with no variation at all) then you're right of course.

quote:

---

I suppose it would need a very picky definition. Is it NS if a landslide (a natural event) falls on some unlucky animal?

​

Was the Chixilub impact Natual selection?

---

No--those are not natural selection. However, you are correct in that, if we use again the example of a population of all white or all black moths, these events could cause evolution to occur (if a landslide exterminated all the white moths that existed, resulting in only black moths surviving, that would be a change in the allele frequency of the gene in the population that resulted in white pigmentation--and therefore, by definition, evolution has occurred). Think I was a little sloppy in my post above, my apologies.

quote:

---

The selection can happen purely randomly and if there is no variation it won't contribute to any change in alle frequency but it's "selection" of a sort I guess.

​

Other than that impossible condition (a population in the wild with no variation at all) then you're right of course.

---

Right--if there was no variation in the population to begin with, then even if a catastrophic event occurred, it would be meaningless in terms of evolution, because the allele frequencies would remain the same (unless it was an immediate extinction event, in which case you wouldn't have any alleles left to examine).