Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Destroying Darwinism
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 151 of 319 (42407)
06-09-2003 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by NosyNed
06-09-2003 2:44 AM


By the standard definition I generally mean those definitions of Natural Selection that are based around a variational pairing for it to apply, such as white and black moths. I would have the theory apply individually, and not require a variational pairing for selection to apply.
Again, it's on you to provide a justification for including variation, not for me to give a justification for excluding it. I mean when I'm trying to give a reason for excluding variation, all I'm doing is trying to find a justification for including it, but coming up empty. So really you have to provide the justification since you support it's use. That is how it is generally done in science. There is no justification for including variation however, we've been through that on this tread.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by NosyNed, posted 06-09-2003 2:44 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2003 5:25 AM Syamsu has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 152 of 319 (42410)
06-09-2003 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Syamsu
06-09-2003 5:00 AM


I cant believe this thread is still on the same issue of white and black moths. How can there be both white and black moths in the population without variation Syamsu?
Are you suggesting that there should be some particular standard used as a measure of fitness for individuals in isolation in a population without variation i.e. one individual in an effectively clonal population? I would have thought that reproductive success would be the obvious one. But if all the members of such a population seem to be similarly fit, as the model most of us adhere to would predict, then where does the natural selection come in? Especially in a clonal population where there is nothing to select?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Syamsu, posted 06-09-2003 5:00 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Syamsu, posted 06-09-2003 6:29 AM Wounded King has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 153 of 319 (42411)
06-09-2003 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by NosyNed
06-09-2003 2:46 AM


Well really I already said in the most simple terms. Selecting against means a relation between the organism and the environment which makes reproduction less likely, selecting for means reproduction more likely. I don't see how you can not understand that, but still understand Natural Selection in it's common definition.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by NosyNed, posted 06-09-2003 2:46 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Peter, posted 06-14-2003 4:54 AM Syamsu has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 154 of 319 (42412)
06-09-2003 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by NosyNed
06-09-2003 2:47 AM


The difference is that you can have reproduction without encroaching.
I'm sorry, what would you say a copymachine does? The copymachine encroaches on blank pages, making the blank pages go extinct? I don't understand how you can't, or have any difficulty at all in seeing the difference.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by NosyNed, posted 06-09-2003 2:47 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2003 6:15 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 161 by NosyNed, posted 06-09-2003 11:18 AM Syamsu has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 155 of 319 (42413)
06-09-2003 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Syamsu
06-09-2003 5:43 AM


You can have reproduction without encroachment, as long as the environment has spare carrying capacity.
As for your copy machine example, if you consider the original ream of blank paper plus your original to be copied as the full carrying capacity of the environment then yes, when all the blank pages have been copied to then the blank page will be extinct in that environment. But a copy machine is a ridiculous analogy for population genetics.
How does the spread of a specific allele through a population not represent a form of encroachment, assuming that the proportion of the encroaching allele in the population increases even if the alternative allele is still increasing in copy number due to reproduction? This still assumes there is no limit to the carrying capacity of the environment. Is a change from 25% to 50% not encroaching?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Syamsu, posted 06-09-2003 5:43 AM Syamsu has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 156 of 319 (42414)
06-09-2003 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Wounded King
06-09-2003 5:25 AM


Well you say they are similarly fit, but in standard theory fitness is a relative term, relative to another variant, and it doesn't apply to traits that are not differentially varying in the population. You make it sound as though uniformity within a population doesn't occur much, but actually it's quite common of course.
There is variation in a population of both black and white, but that variation exists is not a sufficient reason for including it in the definition. You can apply a cutdown theory of selection twice, one time for each variant, in stead of applyin the differential variation version once.
If you apply the cutdown theory twice, then white moths may show up as an overall negative selective factor on black moths, and black moths may show up as a negative selective factor on white moths.
The selection is between reproduction or no reproduction, or between preservation or extinction, of the one. It's not one or the other, as it also isn't in Nature one or the other. There are both black and white moths still AFAIK, there are many colors of butterflies in Indonesia etc.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2003 5:25 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2003 7:49 AM Syamsu has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 157 of 319 (42418)
06-09-2003 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Syamsu
06-09-2003 6:29 AM


How many examples of genetically clonal populations do you really think there are? There are variations even in asexually reproducing organisms. Your best bet is probably highly inbred lab strains of drodophila or mice. It may be that there can be homogeneity of one trait in a population, but that does not make the population homogeneous.
You seem to want to change natural selection into a simple measure of reproductive success. But this doesnt inform us as to the propagation of an allele in a population, and therefore the evolution of that population, unless it is looked at in comparison to the reproductive success of other alleles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Syamsu, posted 06-09-2003 6:29 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Syamsu, posted 06-09-2003 9:40 AM Wounded King has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 158 of 319 (42420)
06-09-2003 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Wounded King
06-09-2003 7:49 AM


It's not the point if a population is clonal or not. To talk about a clonal population is just a convenient way to theorize about how to describe without using reference to variation. It can be applied in populations where there is variation as well, of course.
You would simply do the same as in standard Natural Selection, measure reproductive rate of the one, and measure reproductive rate of the other, but you would not compare the results. You will then have applied the cutdown theory of Natural Selection twice, one time for each variant.
A variant may split of from it's ancestral population through it's differing trait.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2003 7:49 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2003 10:11 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 160 by NosyNed, posted 06-09-2003 11:16 AM Syamsu has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 159 of 319 (42421)
06-09-2003 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Syamsu
06-09-2003 9:40 AM


But unless you combine your observations of the reproductive rates you will not know how the traits are spreading through the population.
You have no cutdown theory of natural selection, all you have is the concept of reproductive success which you seem to think is all there is to natural selection.
You had better hope your clonal populations dont have much variation, if they do then your midi preps are going to be pretty worthless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Syamsu, posted 06-09-2003 9:40 AM Syamsu has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 160 of 319 (42429)
06-09-2003 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Syamsu
06-09-2003 9:40 AM


but you would not compare the results
Why not?
(BTW would you please start marking off the quotes that you copy into your posts and reply to, it makes it easier to follow).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Syamsu, posted 06-09-2003 9:40 AM Syamsu has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 161 of 319 (42430)
06-09-2003 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Syamsu
06-09-2003 5:43 AM


I'm sorry, what would you say a copymachine does? The copymachine encroaches on blank pages, making the blank pages go extinct? I don't understand how you can't, or have any difficulty at all in seeing the difference.
Could you try another analogy if you must use an anaology at all? This one just seems silly to me.
Why is the encroaching so important? Is it another word for competition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Syamsu, posted 06-09-2003 5:43 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Syamsu, posted 06-09-2003 12:43 PM NosyNed has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 162 of 319 (42440)
06-09-2003 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by NosyNed
06-09-2003 11:18 AM


The encroaching is Darwin's justification for including variation in Natural Selection.
First of all you should acknowledge that it is worthwile to look at how an organism reproduces. That is the subjectmatter of a cutdown theory of selection. How an organisms reproduces is that there are relations to the environment that contribute to reproduction, and relations to the environment that diminish reproduction (this I then call positive and negative selective pressures). These relationships make for a chance of reproduction of the organism. (which I call it's fitness)
One of the negative selective factors on an organism might be competition from other organisms in the population with a differing trait. (which is then a negative selective factor). The organism may also be limited in it's production by being preyed upon by another organism from a different species. (which is another negative selective factor). There is no fundamental difference in the relationship between an organism of a different species, and an organism with a differing trait in it's own population, they both diminish the chance of reproduction. (the organism is selected against in relation to both those very differerent organisms). When an organism is preyed on, exactly the same thing happened as when a variant takes it resources. The reproductive success of those that prey is increased, as well as the reproductive success of the variant that took the food.
Now why should I want to compare the reproducionrates of the organism with the variant? And what about comparing the reproductionrate of the organism with the organism that's preying on it? I don't know why.
To put this in an extreme form should provide some insight. Why not compare the rate of reproduction of frogs and elephants as well? Why is that so bizarre?
First, it's bizarre because the frogs and elephants each have their different way of reproducing. So then Natural Selection depends on the difference between organism being very small, otherwise if the difference were big, as big as that between frogs and elephants, then it would be bizarre.
Second, the frogs and elephants do not influence each other's rate of reproduction at all.
It's not neccesarily true for a variant of the same population to influence the rate of reproduction of the organism in question (to encroach). For some part like elephants and frogs, each variant can have their own niche, so encroachment can be no justification for comparing.
Differences between variants being small, is a largely subjective argument, which can't be part of a theory. There is no law of gradualism in nature. Mutations are discrete, and the consequences for reproduction eratic with different mutations. I guess the gradualism between variants that is there, is more likely to be part of an acquired trait for gradualism, rather then that gradualism is a fundamental property of heriditary material. I think that the subjective gradualism in the definition of Natural Selection, is what caused Darwinists to oppose Mendellian genetics for up to 72 years.
So if I would compare then I would get the proportions in the population. But then this can be deceptive beacause the variants may be to some extent in separate populations, have their own niche.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 06-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by NosyNed, posted 06-09-2003 11:18 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by NosyNed, posted 06-09-2003 3:00 PM Syamsu has replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 163 of 319 (42449)
06-09-2003 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Syamsu
06-07-2003 1:15 PM


Re: Inquiring Syamsu's hatred
quote:
**irrelevant Darwinism to Nazism anecdotes**
Your continuing assumption that the abuse of an idea affects its truthfulness is completely ludicrous. The actions of human beings (especially military and political leaders) have ABSOLUTELY no bearing on the validity of scientific theory. You seem to think that we should believe based on the results of belief, not the factual nature of our beliefs. Unfortunately, this attitude would deprive us of both the truth about the world and the good that it would allow us to do in the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Syamsu, posted 06-07-2003 1:15 PM Syamsu has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 164 of 319 (42454)
06-09-2003 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Syamsu
06-09-2003 12:43 PM


The encroaching is Darwin's justification for including variation in Natural Selection.
It is? Could you select the specific page references supporting this?
I think what you are talking about is competition. Why you would use a different word I don't know. May I paraphrase what I think Darwinism is saying?
When there is competition (of any kind) between organisms then some will survive and pass their traits to offspring (reproduce) and some will not. Part of what may determine which ones do and which ones don't (besides dumb luck and any number of other purely random affects) is the fact that they aren't all the same (variation).
First of all you should acknowledge that it is worthwile to look at how an organism reproduces. That is the subjectmatter of a cutdown theory of selection. How an organisms reproduces is that there are relations to the environment that contribute to reproduction, and relations to the environment that diminish reproduction (this I then call positive and negative selective pressures). These relationships make for a chance of reproduction of the organism. (which I call it's fitness)
Is anyone arguing with this? In what way haven't you just reproduced a short form of Darwinism?
One of the negative selective factors on an organism might be competition from other organisms in the population with a differing trait. (which is then a negative selective factor). The organism may also be limited in it's production by being preyed upon by another organism from a different species. (which is another negative selective factor). There is no fundamental difference in the relationship between an organism of a different species, and an organism with a differing trait in it's own population, they both diminish the chance of reproduction. (the organism is selected against in relation to both those very differerent organisms). When an organism is preyed on, exactly the same thing happened as when a variant takes it resources. The reproductive success of those that prey is increased, as well as the reproductive success of the variant that took the food.
Again, I don't see any disagreement. How is this different. I think it is insightful to note that as far as each individual is concerned everything is the environment including other members of it's species and all other species.
Now why should I want to compare the reproducionrates of the organism with the variant? And what about comparing the reproductionrate of the organism with the organism that's preying on it? I don't know why.
From one point of view you may not care about this comparison. However, when we are interested in the alle frequencies in a breeding population we are interested. So from the indivdual point of view it is all competition(a bit extreme but leave it for nw). However, when we want to see how evolution progresses then then the differences are important.
To put this in an extreme form should provide some insight. Why not compare the rate of reproduction of frogs and elephants as well? Why is that so bizarre?
First, it's bizarre because the frogs and elephants each have their different way of reproducing. So then Natural Selection depends on the difference between organism being very small, otherwise if the difference were big, as big as that between frogs and elephants, then it would be bizarre.
Second, the frogs and elephants do not influence each other's rate of reproduction at all.
No, natural selection (it is not appropriate to capitalize it) does not depend on the variations being small. The frog and elephant example makes it appear that way because they don't seem to influence each other's rate of production at all. However, wolfs and rabbit also exhibit "large" variation and they do influence each others rate of reproduction.
It's not neccesarily true for a variant of the same population to influence the rate of reproduction of the organism in question (to encroach). For some part like elephants and frogs, each variant can have their own niche, so encroachment can be no justification for comparing.
Again, is encroachment any different from competition here? And of course it is not neccesarily true for a variant of the same population to influence the rate of reproduction of others of it's species. Some variations are neutral and may or may not spread through the poplution. Later these variations may make a difference and selction will start to influence genetic frequencies. How is this different?
Differences between variants being small, is a largely subjective argument, which can't be part of a theory. There is no law of gradualism in nature. Mutations are discrete, and the consequences for reproduction eratic with different mutations. I guess the gradualism between variants that is there, is more likely to be part of an acquired trait for gradualism, rather then that gradualism is a fundamental property of heriditary material. I think that the subjective gradualism in the definition of Natural Selection, is what caused Darwinists to oppose Mendellian genetics for up to 72 years.
What does the first sentence mean? Why do you think it is saying something true?
Gradualism is not a fundamental property of heriditary material. (see information on HOX genes). And even is it is? So what? Lots of large changes have been shown to occur reasonably gradually.
So if I would compare then I would get the proportions in the population. But then this can be deceptive beacause the variants may be to some extent in separate populations, have their own niche.
What are your trying to say here? I think you are saying they may be starting to speciate. So?
This has not explained anything. It is a simplified rehash of Darwinism. I still don't see the difference you think is there.
{Fixed 2 quote boxes, and 1 "bolding" - People, use the preview button before you submit - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Syamsu, posted 06-09-2003 12:43 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Syamsu, posted 06-10-2003 5:54 AM NosyNed has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 165 of 319 (42488)
06-10-2003 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by NosyNed
06-09-2003 3:00 PM


First of all, it is totally lame for you to say it is inappropiate to captitalize Natural Selection. People are free to capitalize as they see fit, and IMO it makes it more clear to capitilize that word. Please control your controlling behaviour.
The encroaching is from the opening of "Descent of Man". The meaning of competition in Darwinism is a bit vague to me, for it can also be used like "a plant is competing against the drought" so that's why I use encroaching. By encroaching I refer to a variant being a negative selective pressure on another variant.
C.Darwin Descent of Man
"The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals."
the logic of Darwinists:
increase at rapid rate....struggle for existence....beneficial preserved....injurous eliminated...encroach and replace....become extinct.
So if I just produced a short version of Darwinism, why then is the short version not the standard version, with variants being treated as an incidental complicating factor to the short version, just like sexual reproduction?
Note that what is observed in populations most all the time is stasis, the variation is mostly inconsequential to evolution. So the short version would apply to stasis, but the complicated version requiring comparison between variants obviously doesn't meaningfully apply. Besides what is lost sight of in the standard definition, is that the organism may stay the same, but the relationship to the environment changes. We could have differential reproductive success of same organisms in different environments, but unfortunately this falls outside the scope of the theory as well. Apart from that, look at Darwin's rationale for selection again. It is a struggle for existence, and then the one is encroaching and replacing the other. This really only applies to variants to the extent that they use the same resources. So it is not really good to describe evolution of say, a first proto-photosynthesis trait with (assuming that there is not so much gradualism between some photosynthesis and no photosynthesis), but it's meant for slighly different photo-synthesis traits encroaching and replacing one another. So you see it even doesn't describe evolution very well. So by all of this and more, the standard definition of Natural Selection provides an extremely prejudicial view, where large parts of Nature are ignored.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by NosyNed, posted 06-09-2003 3:00 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Wounded King, posted 06-10-2003 7:25 AM Syamsu has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024