Darwinist language

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
There aren't any articles that describe normal operation of photosynthesis in terms of Natural Selection.

---

There aren't any articles describing the conversion of light and various materials into biologically usable materials?Maybe you don't realize that there are several TYPES of photosynthesis?Maybe you don't realize that photosynthetic systems vary just like leg length or hair color?

quote:

---

Photosynthesis is only discussed in relation to Natural Selection if the photosynthesistrait is itself varying, or either it is discussed historically with reference to the first photosynthetic organism etc.

---

What exactly do you want? You want NS incorporated into a description of the actual chemical process of photosynthesis? Why? HOW?

quote:

---

Again, you forget the creation vs evolution debate runs on politics, not

---

Forget? Why would I need to remember? Why is this relevant?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

You are clearly reasoning in a circle. I am done here. Of all people I am one WITH a lot off effort being given to any such framework. You seemed to have missed the very cognitive difference of "chance" and "randomness". It is one thing to agree with you as to what is a significant level of confidence to accept anything randomly or statistically than it is to explain generative randomness.If that is indeed what you do with Darwinist language then you will not be able to do without a paragon of the work. I had establised papers in 3 different course at Cornell that Comptuer Scince categories are not as diverse as biologically existant variations but Wolfram has now written a book to challenge this. You seem only to be (if) arguing from the distal end of the reasoning but this is not suffient to answer Kant even in the way Einstein did.If you insist on word "form" then how do you Darwinize Gladyshev's Macrothermodynamics for which he requested info on to do it. As far as I have been able to understand your intention it would be able in part to return a response to this Russian author but you splitting homonculi with me seems to mis this very viable point.Reproduction IN MENDELS sense may be if his notion of ADDITION was extended to any Russel relation and still I have not specified the artifical selection or the taste of soup that Croizat stewed for Gould nor any reproduction for all or every natural selection.I really can not touch this loop to which you seem to refer. When you look at forms do you consider the complex parts as due to simple programs or is your impression of any innate itution such that you do not use any work framed?I can only guess that you are playing {animal, vegatable, mineral, with me} but if you do not answer any of these questions I will have no choice but to think like JOE somebody when posting in another venue. Some questions must be answered before education can result from the learning.

No I didn't realise that that there are as many variants of photosynthesis as there are colors of hair, I thought photosynthesis needed very specific molecules, or otherwise it didn't work. Of course when I say there is no writing about Selection in regards to photosynthesis I mean there is no writing on it without reference to variation. That is the main point we are discussing, selection without variation. There aren't any articles which use the term selection in regards to normal operation of photosynthesis, eventhough there are many articles on normal operation of photosynthesis.The change for selection to be defined in a non-comparitive invidivdual way, and not in a comparitison of forms way is revolutionary for the politics in the creation vs evolution debate. You argued that the change was not revolutionary, for as far as science goes.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Ohhhh,Of course you can have selection without variation if like in a disipative system two parts equlimrium an attractor takes one between two states and this attractor DIRECTUM is artifically selected but to assert that the variation Fisher associates with NAtural selection is this even in theory is a bit of strech beyond even what I assumed was reality for you. I was in other lines pointing out issues where current ideas in natural selection passed knowable work in genetics but that is a different formation of variance than is standard fare and is les s quesitonable than reproduction without any variational selection, as I guess I know now now know you to say how.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-07-2003]

The reason that Natural Selection is random for much of the time is because organisms reproduce and therefore are largely the same, like equal sides on a die. Also like a die, where only 1 side can turn up, the share of organisms that can reproduce is often limited.I don't think it's neccessary to Darwinize macrothermodynamic evolution, they can just exist as separate theories with separate meaning. As far as I can tell, to Darwinize it would mean to say something like there has to be something new all the time, otherwise the ecosystem will inevitably degrade.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Indeed they may.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
No I didn't realise that that there are as many variants of photosynthesis as there are colors of hair

---

Nor did I say this.

quote:

---

Of course when I say there is no writing about Selection in regards to photosynthesis I mean there is no writing on it without reference to variation.

---

Are you sure this is what you mean? Because you seem to be turning 180 degrees.

quote:

---

That is the main point we are discussing, selection without variation. There aren't any articles which use the term selection in regards to normal operation of photosynthesis, eventhough there are many articles on normal operation of photosynthesis.

---

Give an example. Make up something. How can one write about photosynthesis and selection in the manner you desire?

quote:

---

The change for selection to be defined in a non-comparitive invidivdual way, and not in a comparitison of forms way is revolutionary for the politics in the creation vs evolution debate.

---

Are you listening to yourself? You want to define SELECTION in a manner that does not involve selection. To select, you must have objects from which to select and those objects must have variations or there is no selection involved. You just grab one.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Huh? Now I'm totally lost. Didn't you explicitly say some posts before that there can be selection without variation, talking about clones? And now you insist on variation for selection to apply?The environment represents a filter to organisms for them to reproduce or not to reproduce. This filter is Natural Selection in my definition. By this definition, Natural Selection doesn't select on forms/variants but on individuals.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
And now you insist on variation for selection to apply?

---

No. I am just not being very clear. NS works just fine whether you have variation or not because things like the weather and predation do the 'selecting.' You seem to want to define NS in such a way that variation is NEVER a factor. And I hate to break it to you, but variation is almost always a factor.

quote:

---

The environment represents a filter to organisms for them to reproduce or not to reproduce. This filter is Natural Selection in my definition.

---

Just like in the current theory of NS...

quote:

---

By this definition, Natural Selection doesn't select on forms/variants but on individuals.

---

ummmm..... NS will always select on a form/variant even if that form is the same in all individuals-- ie a clone population. This quip about individuals not forms is silly. What does the environment effect if not the BODIES -- ie. forms -- of the individuals? This is what I was aiming at above. You seem to want to define NS in such a way that form is not a factor at all. Now you seem to have abstracted selection to the point that it functions of the meta-physical individual instead of the physical animal.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Oh yes I forgot, the variation of 1. I think the emphasis on form is the platonic or meta physical individual notion, that is, you don't look to individuals you only look at different forms/varations of individuals.As in some other post:
The light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (positive selection pressure). If variation is a factor then it will show up in the environment somewhere as a factor.You will not, to my best guess, find any use of selection like above on the web.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Oh yes I forgot, the variation of 1. I think the emphasis on form is the platonic or meta physical individual notion, that is, you don't look to individuals you only look at different forms/varations of individuals.

---

What?

quote:

---

As in some other post:
The light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (positive selection pressure). If variation is a factor then it will show up in the environment somewhere as a factor.

---

What is the point?

quote:

---

You will not, to my best guess, find any use of selection like above on the web.[

---

Ya think.... photosynthetic variation - Google SearchDid you even look?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Ah now you are referring me to articles about VARIATION AGAIN...I can't believe it...There is no use of the term selection on photosynthetis in the way I described *WITHOUT VARIATION*.The point being that the definition of Natural Selection which doesn't require variation is not mainstream, as you asserted it was.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Ah now you are referring me to articles about VARIATION AGAIN...I can't believe it...

---

Syamsu, are you insane? These are your words. NOTICE THE LAST SENTENCE? It is ok for the variation to be a 'factor' but not for it to be named? This is ridiculous.

quote:

---

There is no use of the term selection on photosynthetis in the way I described *WITHOUT VARIATION*.

---

The 'way you describe' includes variation as a factor. Do you need your own words quoted back to you again?Assume you could find a clone population of photosynthesizers the result of NS would be that the whole population lives or that the whole population dies. Not terribly interesting.And I challenge you to find such a population for scientists to study. I bet you can't. Virtually all populations have variants. If you have variants, NS involves variants. You can't avoid this. Thus, what you find in the journals will also concern variants.

quote:

---

The point being that the definition of Natural Selection which doesn't require variation is not mainstream, as you asserted it was.

---

Do individuals in a clone population still die? I have lost count of the number of times I have asked this, but you have not once answered it that I remember. Do you think scientists do not realize that clone populations still succumb to bad weather?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Can you deal with being wrong?You went looking on google with the keywords variation and photosynthesis. This you did in an effort to prove that the definition of Natural Selection without variation is mainstream. That makes no sense.It is interesting to look at photosynthesis in regards to the event of reproduction. Interesting to note that it contributes to reproduction, interesting to look at varying reproductionrates in regards to varying weatherconditions etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Can you deal with being wrong?

---

Yes, but I'm not. Can you deal with being pathologically stubborn and selectively blind?

quote:

---

You went looking on google with the keywords variation and photosynthesis. This you did in an effort to prove that the definition of Natural Selection without variation is mainstream. That makes no sense.

---

Actually, I went to Google looking for something that fit the definition you provided when I asked you what exactly you were looking for in reguard to photosynthesis and NS. This definition included the possibility of variation. But you have ignored that bit though I pointed it out to you lost post. You have a habit of doing that. You ignore truly stunning amounts of information.I ask you again, what exactly do you want? Light hits chloroplast and.... what? And the chloroplast does its thing? That is about it. End of story.

quote:

---

It is interesting to look at photosynthesis in regards to the event of reproduction. Interesting to note that it contributes to reproduction, interesting to look at varying reproduction rates in regards to varying weatherconditions etc.

---

But varying reproduction rates in comparison to other organisms is not ok? This is absurd. You can't even keep variation out of your own definitions. It is you who has not thought this through.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com