Darwinist language

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Your redefinition of variation is not convincing.

---

My redefinition? You are too much, man! Do you have reason to believe that two minus one is zero?

quote:

---

In regards to endangered species it's not shallow to know exactly what contributes to their reproduction and what hinders their reproduction.

---

You are right. It isn't shallow. It is shallow to eliminate some of the things that contribute and hinder that reproduction. And this is exactly what you insist on doing.

quote:

---

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.

---

Right, but not when you eliminate some of the factors because you don't like the 'politics.'

quote:

---

So you see, to define Natural Selection with variation would be deceptive in regards to normal usage of variation.

---

No, I don't see and from the looks of it neither does anyone else.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

In my formulation the black moth, would show up in the environment of the white moth, so I am not ignoring the black moth variant.You have run out of arguments.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
In my formulation the black moth, would show up in the environment of the white moth, so I am not ignoring the black moth variant.

---

Then you are right back to differential reproductive success. LOL....------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

No I'm not back to comparing. When the variant shows up in the environment I am not comparing it with the other, I am just treating it as a selective factor. Maybe the increase in black moth, and the decrease in white moth, were independent processes to some degree that were not related by competition much. That is, if there were no black moths to begin with, the population of white moth would have decreased anyway because of the trees turning black. Or if there were only black moths, then the population of black moths would have increased regardless of there being any white moths or not. It doesn't make sense to me to compare processes which are largely separate.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
No I'm not back to comparing. When the variant shows up in the environment I am not comparing it with the other, I am just treating it as a selective factor.

---

Then you do not deny that the animals themselves-- the various variants-- are part of the environment? And you do not deny that one variant can serve as a selective pressure on another variant? What do you think selective pressure is, Syamsu? If I eat a bunny, that bunny isn't there for you to eat. This puts us in competition. If my leaves grow a little higher than yours and cut out some of your sunlight, then we are in competition. This doesn't have to always be the case but my problem with what you propose is that you deny that such things happen, despite the fact that they happen all the time.

quote:

---

Maybe the increase in black moth, and the decrease in white moth, were independent processes to some degree that were not related by competition much.

---

Perhaps so, in the case of these moths, but I the ToE doesn't require direct competition between variants and NS isn't about direct competition either but about the survival of individuals for whatever reason-- direct competition for resources or not. Again, my major problem is that you want to deny that such competition occurs under any circumstances.

quote:

---

It doesn't make sense to me to compare processes which are largely separate.

---

We aren't comparing processes, but the average distribution of traits in a population. Maybe this is where your misconception lies. Differential reproductive success does not mean that the two or more variants are directly competing, though such may be the case. The DRS calculation just means that creatures with x-trait, or suit of traits, made more babies that creatures without the trait(s), FOR WHATEVER REASONS. What those reasons are is another question. It could be direct competition-- and I'd bet this is almost always a factor even if a small one-- but it could also be other things, like a fortuitous immunity to a particular parasite.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

One would not have to know that one knew it was "new" every time but in some Darwinization of Macrothermodynamics the ability to seperate a given supramolecular strucutre must exist in essential or metaphysical categories you mentioned as PER a given application in macrothermo of the LeChantiler-Braun principle (at least as to our discussed issue of the 2nd law thermo)this however MIGHT be divided into Mendel's statistical cateogorialy hope out of a say 1:3 across generation but if the thermostat which would thus be isolatable suggested something "new" to you, you might not have been entirely out of your mind on variation but there is a possiblity that one will have to rethink how variation itself arises as well for the relation of the levels to radiation and carcinogens seems somewhat undefined. With respect to Gladyshev's ideas I indeed found my self STILL comparing espsecially the relation of collagen and to lipids where Gladyshev simply notes in equilibrium that DNA changes('adapts') to the temperature enviornment in a slower pacing than RNA than etc. etc. etc. I have had to use my understading of Cantor to keep this from simply being something "new" as Georgi's ideas are really quite classical but difficult only because they span the entire range of physics, chemsitry AND biology. He thinks that divide and rule applies socially as well but I am not so certain. Any way time has finally come 'round' (not that it was in any way renewed) for me to respond to the funny imaginaries Loudmouth and I mentioned so that will be next. I hope you all survived while I was doing dilligence.see for comparison

quote:

---

according to how they affect human fitness and aging. At the heart of the theory is the concept that substances or products with chemical make-ups close to that of young, simple organisms from colder regions have the most health benefits and will help prolong human life. For example, seaweed or shellfish from cold waters are dietetically better for humans than more complex food products from warmer climates.

---

Page not found – yet2This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-22-2004 02:29 PM

Just jumping in here.I had never thought about the hypothetical situation of an entire population of clones, but here is my take on it.Despite the fact that they are clones they are still not equivalent.
At the risk of misusing the term there is still "variation."
It wouldn't be genetic variation (at first).
None of the individuals can be in the same place at the same time so
there will be at least slight differences in their experience.
Then, of course, there will be plenty of room for mutation as time progresses.
Since, most likely, some individuals will die before they reproduce and there is
still mutation going on, then you still have a NS situation,
especially if some individuals reproduce after a mutation.I know this has nothing to do with this argument, but if there are some misconceptions here, please let me have it...

Henderson I believe made this point about the purely spatial aspects of panbiogeography regardless of if Symasu's notion of reproduction applied to clones or not. This is the same issue about how Provine might have thought that Fisher changed his mind about the extendability of population fission on reading WRIGHTS MATH! Yes as long as there is translation in space there can be formmaking by mutation independent of the kinesis,locomotion....but not exactly and that I think is WHY Wright constructed his calculations on selection or mutation or migration (equilibrated)?This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-26-2005 10:22 AM