Darwinist language

Can you deal with fine differences in arguments? Yes, that's about it, light choloroplast, reproduction, end of story. As before, the light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (positive selection pressure). Now do this for every trait of the organism, and you have an interesting view of an organism. Identify the positive and negative selective "pressures" on an organism, and you know the basics about the organism. I don't think you can reasonably trivialize that knowledge.As before, we can ignore variation of organisms most of the time for reproduction chances, since most of the time there is stasis, or so I'm told. It is reasonable to trivialize that knowledge. It is not absolutely neccessary to use the formulation of differential reproductive success of variants for evolution. AFAIK origin of species (evolution) only requires for a mutation to contribute to reproduction. There is no absolute need to compare the reproductivesuccess of the mutant with the ancestorpopulation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Can you deal with fine differences in arguments?

---

Apparently you cannot.

quote:

---

Yes, that's about it, light choloroplast, reproduction, end of story. As before, the light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (positive selection pressure). Now do this for every trait of the organism, and you have an interesting view of an organism. Identify the positive and negative selective "pressures" on an organism, and you know the basics about the organism. I don't think you can reasonably trivialize that knowledge.

---

Sure, Syamsu, a chemist or a bio-chemist may be quite interested but it tells us nothing about evolution. And evolution explaining evolution is the point of NS. This is what is so weird. You want to define NS is such a way that it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution requires the comparison of indivuduals, not just the study of one individual, even if it turns out that the individuals are clones.

quote:

---

As before, we can ignore variation of organisms most of the time for reproduction chances, since most of the time there is stasis, or so I'm told. It is reasonable to trivialize that knowledge.

---

LOL..... it is reasonable to trivialize a key element of evolution? Please note, evolution requires variation. NS does not. The two are different but intimately related.

quote:

---

It is not absolutely neccessary to use the formulation of differential reproductive success of variants for evolution.

---

We started out talking about NS and I agree that there is no need for variation. Now you are saying that the ToE does not require variation and on this you are dead wrong.

quote:

---

AFAIK origin of species (evolution) only requires for a mutation to contribute to reproduction. There is no absolute need to compare the reproductive success of the mutant with the ancestor population.

---

The varying reproductive success rates are the key features of evolution. You cannot eliminate it. Explain change in a population without using variation. I dare you. Pretend you have a population of trolls and an sudden ice age occurs. Describe the change in the population without using variation. If you can't do it, drop the argument. You have to tell me why some survive and some don't and you will be forced into the answer that some where different and that difference allowed them to survive. Period. If there are no differences they all live or they all die. If they all live there IS NO CHANGE IN THE SPECIES. No change means no evolution by definition. If they all die, well the species goes extinct and you still have no evolution.Anxiously awaiting your answer.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

The reason some variants survive and others don't may be separate reasons. It is possible that one mutation gives rise to a new specie, which gives the minimum requirement for origin of species, for a mutation to contribute to reproduction. This probably has occurred in Nature somewhere. Gradualness and for a trait to dominate the ancestorpopulation are both common but not therefore essential IMO.I think it's deceptive to compare reproductive rates of variants when either both variants flourish or perish, which is allowed in differential reproductive success of variants. Mutant organisms may go into a different environment then their ancestor, which would also make comparison rather meaningless.I would prefer competitive or replacement reproductive success of variants over differential reproductive success of variants, since with competition the variants influence each other's chance of reproduction, while with a differential they don't neccessarily influence each others reproductionrate.I'm not sure differential reproductive success has much of any merit at all. It's just like the theory of differential buildinglength, or differential lighintensity of stars, it's just a measurement standardization, not a mechanism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
The reason some variants survive and others don't may be separate reasons.

---

What?

quote:

---

It is possible that one mutation gives rise to a new specie, which gives the minimum requirement for origin of species, for a mutation to contribute to reproduction.

---

This isn't close to the minimum requirement for speciation. You have a few mutations. You are not a new species. Everybody has mutations. Speciation is a lot more complicated than that.

quote:

---

This probably has occurred in Nature somewhere.

---

I sort-of doubt that one mutation could create a species.

quote:

---

Gradualness and for a trait to dominate the ancestorpopulation are both common but not therefore essential IMO.

---

Gradual change is not necessary? hmmm... rapid change -- ie. PE-- can and does happen but you seem to be pushing the 'hopeful monster' view. You actually believe that new species are created in one fell swoop with one mutation?As for the trait not becoming dominant in the ancestor population, with whom does your hopeful monster mate? You can't found a new species with one individual, assuming the critter reproducies sexually.

quote:

---

I think it's deceptive to compare reproductive rates of variants when either both variants flourish or perish, which is allowed in differential reproductive success of variants.

---

So you now allow that NS can apply to clone populations but it is 'deceptive' ?

quote:

---

Mutant organisms may go into a different environment then their ancestor, which would also make comparison rather meaningless.

---

Yes, it would. We would no longer be talking about the same population but two seperate populations.

quote:

---

I would prefer competitive or replacement reproductive success of variants over differential reproductive success of variants, since with competition the variants influence each other's chance of reproduction, while with a differential they don't neccessarily influence each others reproductionrate.

---

Have you not been complaining about individuals competing with one another? Now this is what you prefer? This is very curious. I hope you do not vaccilate once again as this is indeed progress.You are quibbling over the competitive/replacement bits. You are still talking about differential reproduction rates.[qutoe]I'm not sure differential reproductive success has much of any merit at all. It's just like the theory of differential buildinglength, or differential lighintensity of stars, it's just a measurement standardization, not a mechanism.[/QUOTE]Who said it was a mechanism? It is just a measurement standard. It is something we use to describe population change. It isn't some kind of force like magnetism. Environmental factors and mutation are the real mechanisms. The 'mechanism' of differential reproductive success is just shorthand for a whole slew of causal relationships.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Where Social Darwinism comes from is from the comparison of forms and then saying one is better or more succesful then the other. There isn't neccesarily a functional relationship between the two variants compared (influencing each others reproduction), which makes it all the more Platonic, and therefore even more conducive to valuejudgement in my experience. I prefer something like competitive reproduction of variants over differential reproductive success of variants, as somthing similar to it, but with slightly different meaning. But competitive reproduction of variants would of course not be the basic definition of Natural Selection, it would just be a subset. The basic definition would just be reproduction or no reproduction of an organism in relation to it's environment.I'm not looking to make a hopeful monster theory of evolution, I am just looking for a definition of evolution that is inclusive of all sorts of events which fall under origin of species. There probably are hopeful monsters, and maybe these hopeful monsters have a special place in the ecosystem or descentlineage. If such were found then it would be shown to be very foolish to insist on gradualness IMO. What if for instance the first photosynthesis was such a hopeful monster mutation? Then the whole plant kingdom would be outside the definition of evolution for lack of gradualness. Gradualness, and all those other kinds of things which are implied by the formulation differential reproductive success of variants, is non-essential for origin of species to occur.Differential reproductive success of variants does not apply to clone populations, in mainstream usage.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Where Social Darwinism comes from is from the comparison of forms and then saying one is better or more succesful then the other.

---

You are flogging a dead horse here, bud.

quote:

---

The basic definition would just be reproduction or no reproduction of an organism in relation to it's environment.

---

And if you include a critter's compatriots in the definition of 'environment' -- which you must-- then you have the NS as it stands. You travel great distances to restate natural selection.

quote:

---

Differential reproductive success of variants does not apply to clone populations, in mainstream usage.

---

Are the individuals in a clone population still subject to the forces of their environment? Why will you not answer this?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

They are still subject to the same forces, but clones are not variants, hence they fall outside the scope of the definition.We seem to disagree about what measure of exactitude is required in the formulation of a scientific theory. You are obviously more loose by that standard, saying that all the definitions we talked about are about the same. I think that these apparently small differences in the fundaments of a theory, make a huge difference for the "politics" associated with the theory (creation vs evolution, social darwinism, atheism vs theism), and also a significant difference for the science.Apparantly you won't accept any argument or evidence that shows the difference for the politics part. I'm not sure how to evidence that it would matter for the science-part. How to show that differential reproductive succes of variants would lead to error, where reprodution or no reproduction of an organism in relation to it's environment, would not have lead to error, or lead to greater insight. I'm inclined to say that theories just have to be as precisely formulated as they can be, and leave it at that.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
They are still subject to the same forces

---

ah-ha.... Now, you propose that no one has noticed this but you? You have got to be joking.

quote:

---

but clones are not variants, hence they fall outside the scope of the definition.

---

.... fall outside what you think the definition is. This is not the same. You have to accept the absurd idea that NO ONE has noticed that clones die in order to make your position consistent. I'm sorry, but I can't take that seriously.

quote:

---

We seem to disagree about what measure of exactitude is required in the formulation of a scientific theory.

---

I have a problem with arbitrary divisions.

quote:

---

You are obviously more loose by that standard, saying that all the definitions we talked about are about the same.

---

That is funny since you always reconstruct NS pretty much as it is now.

quote:

---

I think that these apparently small differences in the fundaments of a theory, make a huge difference for the "politics" associated with the theory (creation vs evolution, social darwinism, atheism vs theism), and also a significant difference for the science.

---

Differences which only you notice as far as I can tell.

quote:

---

Apparantly you won't accept any argument or evidence that shows the difference for the politics part.

---

Why should I modify what appears to be the truth because of the 'politics'?

quote:

---

I'm not sure how to evidence that it would matter for the science-part.

---

If you can't show this, don't you think you may have a problem? Maybe an unfounded hypothesis?

quote:

---

How to show that differential reproductive succes of variants would lead to error, where reprodution or no reproduction of an organism in relation to it's environment, would not have lead to error, or lead to greater insight.

---

Again, if you can't show this it ought to indicate to you that there is a problem with your theory.

quote:

---

I'm inclined to say that theories just have to be as precisely formulated as they can be, and leave it at that.

---

Your formulation is not precise. It is all over the board. What you say changes with the question to which you respond. Sometimes you want to leave out competition between individuals, other times you say it may be a factor. You invoke reproduction rates but insist upon applying them to only one individual at a time. That is meaningless. Then you say it is 'reproduction with reguard to environment' but exclude an organisms compatriots. Sorry, but other individuals are a part of the environment. To prove this, lock yourself and four friends in a room with one sandwich and let me know if you all manage to not be in competition for food.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Show you care about exactitude by pointing out to Schrafinator in the Darwinism and Nazism thread that Natural Selection is not linked to evolution by definition. That there needn't be evolution for Natural Selection to occur, that Natural Selection also can happen in clone populations without any evolution at all.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Show you care about exactitude by pointing out to Schrafinator in the Darwinism and Nazism thread that Natural Selection is not linked to evolution by definition. That there needn't be evolution for Natural Selection to occur, that Natural Selection also can happen in clone populations without any evolution at all.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

So.... are you not going to respond to post #53?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Clones do fall outside the definition of differential reproductive success of variants, since there is no variation between clones. It has nothing to do with whether or not people noticed that clones die, whether or not it falls outside the definition or not.You make no difference between formulations that do include variation and formulations that don't include variation. As far as I can tell, your answer is basically that you just don't care precisely which way Natural Selection is defined, and that I find very difficult to deal with.Again, for the 3rd or fourth time, the definition without variation is usable for instance in the sense of saying like: light (environment) falls on photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to reproduction (positive selection). You can also use the definition without variation in respect to endangered species.That I sometimes include, and sometimes exclude variation and competition in an example is to make clear that while the redefinition doesn't require competition or variation, the redefined Natural Selection can still handle them as incidental factors.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Clones do fall outside the definition of differential reproductive success of variants, since there is no variation between clones.

---

All you need to do is plug the right number -- 1 -- into the formula.

quote:

---

You make no difference between formulations that do include variation and formulations that don't include variation.

---

Actually, you pretend that the concept of NS used by scientists excludes variation. This is your problem.

quote:

---

Again, for the 3rd or fourth time, the definition without variation is usable for instance in the sense of saying like: light (environment) falls on photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to reproduction (positive selection). You can also use the definition without variation in respect to endangered species.

---

LOL...... your definition is meaningless. An effect on reproduction in relation to what? That and it has nothing to do with populations just individuals, so it has nothing to do with evolution.

quote:

---

That I sometimes include, and sometimes exclude variation and competition in an example is to make clear that while the redefinition doesn't require competition or variation, the redefined Natural Selection can still handle them as incidental factors.

---

hmmmm..... no. It is clear from your posts that this is not the case. Lets not be dishonest.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Your use of variation is nonstandard/wrong. For insance there is no variation in a clone population, the variation is zero, not one.The effect of reproduction is that there is another organism, that this is not interesting to you is your problem. Safe to say that nothing in Nature will make sense to you then, if you find it meaningless to see the attributes of organisms in light of their reproduction.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Your use of variation is nonstandard/wrong. For insance there is no variation in a clone population, the variation is zero, not one.

---

Lets see. We have a red fish and a blue fish. That is, two variants. Subtract one variant and we have ONE variant left not zero. Do you now have a problem with counting?Zero variants == extinct. I think you are confusing the language with the math.

quote:

---

The effect of reproduction is that there is another organism, that this is not interesting to you is your problem.

---

What do we know about this other organism? That it looks kinda-sorta like its mommie? That is pretty shallow. That is the problem.

quote:

---

Safe to say that nothing in Nature will make sense to you then, if you find it meaningless to see the attributes of organisms in light of their reproduction.

---

I don't find it meaningless. What I find meaningless is the way you insist the study be done.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Your redefinition of variation is not convincing.We also know that all organisms die, and therefore reproduction has a special role in keeping organisms in the world. In regards to endangered species it's not shallow to know exactly what contributes to their reproduction and what hinders their reproduction. Actually you would come to know pretty much everything you want to know about an organism if you view it in terms of the event of it's reproduction.Maybe a less boring theory is also possible, which says that there has to be something new all the time for an ecosystem to keep functioning (for the life in it not to become extinct). It seems Brad referred to some such theory.edited to add: Previously you said about variation "There is no need for variants at all. You could have clones-- no variation at all-- and this would still apply. This kind of variant-less..." etc.So you see, to define Natural Selection with variation would be deceptive in regards to normal usage of variation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 01-20-2003]