Destroying Darwinism

I'm don't believe this to be true. Firstly, when we talk about "variants" are we talking about individuals with new traits, or the new genes themselves? I'm inclined to view natural selection at the genetic basis.Secondly, the "prize" is simple survival. Not the extinction of competition. It is sufficient for natural selection that a specific trait survives. It doesn't have to monopolize. So natural selection does apply continuously.It's like, if we're being chased by a predator, I don't have to be the only one who survives to "win". I just have to not be the one individual that gets eaten. I don't have to outrun the bear, I only have to outrun you. I don't understand what qualification you have to determine what is "standard in biology" and what is not.I've always understood natural selection to be not a law, or a theory, but simply a statement of an apparent trend - individuals who possess advantageous traits tend to produce more offspring than those that do not. I don't see anything inherently racist about that. So, you recognize then that scientific racism is actually pseudoscience, and not an inherent failing of the ToE. So what's the problem? You still haven't addressed why the Bible or the Koran are any better, as they have constantly been used to defend all kinds of pernicious deeds for centuries.

First you *insist* on including competition in the definition, and then when I present the rationale for including competition in the definition of Natural Selection you deny it has merit. You have no clue about what you're arguing.In "Descent of Man" by Darwin, you'll find it stated in the beginning as a central hypothesis, "do races or species of man encroach on one another until some finally become extinct"? Countless times after that it talks about, if the one only has a slight competitive disadvantage, then that that the race or tribe is surely doomed. Again, the original reason for including competition, is to compete until extinction. It makes no sense to say compete until it is dominant, because the subject of interest in Natural Selection is persistence and not dominance. There is no neccesary relation between dominance/subservieance and persistence/extinction.I know what the standard is in this respect, because I've asked some very knowledgeable Darwinists. Competition is also not in the most common used biology definitions I see on the internet.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I'll ask again for some creationists to join the discussion. There really is no valid counterargument against the technical point I'm making, or at least it wasn't offered in this discussion. The Darwinists here are just blowing wind.Basicly you just have to keep in mind that the significant thing is the relation of an organism to it's environment. Whether or not that relation contributes to reproduction. So the significant knowledge with the moths is that white moths have camouflage from predatory birds on white trees, and that this contributes to their reproduction. There is no need to compare with black moths at all, or compare with elephants or ants, or any other creatures whatsoever, because it doesn't provide meaningful knowledge.You can know it's credible that Darwinism is faulty eventhough it is a generally accepted scientific theory because:- the main works in Darwinism are written in proza style, in stead of formalized systemized knowledge style, and technical faults like this can easily be glossed over in proza- Darwinists are generally ideological about their theory, different then scientists in other disciplines. The generally comabtive attitude of Darwinists doesn't allow for open inquiry.- The trackrecord of Darwinist science is generally abysmal, for instance for up to 72 years they denied the fundaments of modern genetics, Mendellism, because they couldn't fit it into their theory. (as you can see in this thread, some Darwinists in the year 2003 still have a problem with affirming that hereditary particles are discrete, and not gradual in nature)- Some notable philosphers, Popper, also criticized Natural Selection as fundamentally flawed (the retraction of Popper was simply to say that *some* definitions of Selection are correct, but other definitions, like the current standard, remain incorrect by Popper's criticism)So knowing what the flaw is (comparing with variants), and knowing that it is credible that a flaw could exist in a theory (prozaic nature of Darwinism), and knowing what is still a meaningful use of selection (white moths on white trees are selected for), the discussion should turn to how this flaw can be corrected.I think the way to do it is to have the creationist papers that talk about the link of racism and Nazism to Darwinism, relate the link to the fundamental flaw in Darwinism, as I've argued in my first post. The constant judgementalism in Darwinist language talking about one creature being better then another, is what made it support racism, and Nazism. This approach at the same time invalidates the worth of Darwinism to science, as well as to humanity. Most times when faced with an argument that links Darwinism to racism and Nazism, people will say like, maybe it has some relations to racism and Nazism, but it's still science, so we need it. That kind of opinion becomes invalid, when it is shown that Darwinism is scientifically flawed.It's still generally unknown that the highly influential Darwinian scientist Konrad Lorenz participated in "selecting" people for the Nazi regime. I think a paper with this fact as it's starting point, and reference to established historians like Klaus Fischer, as well as reference to facts like that the Hitleryouth were taught Darwinism in Darwinist styled schools, and the general pervasiveness of Darwinist concepts in Nazi literature, would in conjuction with the flaw, convince people that the creationists since Williams Jennings Bryant have been right all along, regardless of whether evolution is true or not.(William Jennings Bryan was the one who argued for creationism in the famous Scopes trial, which was about the legality of teaching evolutionary theory in Kansas. the textbook teacher Scopes used was of course laced with Darwinist racism, and would still be illegal to teach in the present)regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Once again we see how poor comprehension w.r.t. reading and a totally ossified mindset can lead a person to make absolutely stupid statements

quote:

---

First of all this abstract doesn't say how size contributes to reproduction.

---

Well Syamsu, unless dead things propagate where you are from I think that even you should see the ridiculous nature of your statement. Size is, to a degree, heritable. The surviving frogs, a greater percentage of these will be those individuals with a combination of traits and environmental conditions which allow for earlier metamorphosis and greater size, will live to sexual maturity and be able to sire offspring, and pass on any traits which they posses. On a side note, from other references in the article and in info, which can be obtained on line, the sexual selection acts as a partial brake on size in opposition to natural selection. Female frogs prefer mates who are roughly 80% of their size, a ratio that results in a larger percentage of the eggs being fertilized. However, they also will select for males with more song (generally larger) and larger males will often displace the smaller males from the female ensuring that their genes will be passed on rather than those for the smaller male. Unless of course Suyamsu’s dead frogs really CAN have offspring.

quote:

---

Of course you chose a convenient gradualist example of size. The holes in the method is more clearly demonstrated with a more specific variation such as a specific chemical produced, something with a specific function, which then the other variant does not have.

---

Actually, I chose one that I felt that you could understand and handle, guess that I was wrong. And if you have such a CLEAR cut case, as you indicate above, why do you not supply it. And please avoid the dren that you have supplied in the past, where you claim that this something must surely be out there but fair to provide specifics. Here is a specific variation, look up serine protease and clotting and you will find some of what you are referring to, except that it runs counter to your stated position re: evolution.

quote:

---

You seem to be reifying gradualism into a scientific hypothesis, but it's merely a notion. While it may not happen very much that something with a new and specific function is produced, it does happen very much that something that functioned in the parent is mutated and doesn't function anymore in the offspring.

---

First off child, do you even know what reification is? Some aspects of gradualism in biology are quite real, they are often an expressed phenotype from a blending of multiple genotypes and the environment. Second, what do you mean by specific function. Are you off on that old, discredited, Aristotelian BS wagon again?

quote:

---

So you see you still have some form of "negative" saltation all the time, and also some "positive" saltation that is more rare. To deny that would mean that you have to find a theoretical reason why differences cannot be very distinct.

---

So, now any change is saltation; please go on, you only demonstrate your total ignorance of biology everytime that you open your mouth. Saltation, in biology at least, has a very specific meaning. Do you know what that is?------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Actually, I have no clue what you're arguing. It's pretty clear that your arguments aren't well thought out; otherwise you wouldn't be resorting to name-calling, etc.Get back to us when you have a point. Until then I don't see a reason to address your arguments, as they appear to basically be straw men and semantics games.

As far as I can tell, you have no point. Of course it is not good enough to bring out the old, it survives longer and therefore it reproduces more, to adequately describe how large size contributes reproduction. We don't want all our biologypapers to contain the exactsame words, with the only difference being the name of the trait in question.If you tell me you will take consequence if I provide reference to a mutation that leads to a really very distinct change, then I will go look for it. Of course it's ridiculous that your argument relies on mutations not leading to very distinct differences. That is just a notion, you can't possibly call it hard science that differences produced by mutation are not very distinct, or not produce a fundamentally distinct quality.Now you begin to talk of blending, how bizarre. It seems like you're still stuck in pre-Mendellian times! I think you've demonstrated how the denial of Mendellism for up to 72 years by Darwinists, was connected to the difficulties and deceptive nature of making comparisons, to have a theory focused on making comparisons.I use saltation the way you used the word to refer to a sheep with 5 legs.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Basicly you are *very* confused about if selection should mean:- more reproduction of the one then the other,
- replacement/encroachment of one by the other,
- reproduction or no reproduction of the one.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

I'll ask again for some creationists to join the discussion.

---

I'm a creationist!Unfortunately, I'm an honest one, so I believe God created us over billions of years by a purposeful, planned process we tend to refer to as evolution or descent with modification, which happens by mutations being acted upon by natural selection.Not only that, but I can't understand anything you're saying. Crash admitted he didn't have a clue what you're arguing about, and I can't tell, either. I'd blame it on my lack of scientific knowledge, but I didn't have too much problem understanding Taz, and his post was more technical than yours have been.I doubt many people, even an antievolution creationist, could join you, because they wouldn't be too sure what you're saying.

I defined natural selection (perhaps not in this thread; I don't recall) to refer to "differential reproductive success biased towards those individuals with heritable, advantageous (relative to their environment) traits."There's nothing confused about my definition, and I believe it to be in agreement with standard biological concepts.Anyway, it's not clear that your list represents mutually exclusive elements. Why couldn't natural selection result in all of those outcomes in different situations? It really seems to me like you're the one confused about what natural selection refers to.

Well you use the word mutation actually, where a Darwinist would have used the word variation. For as far as I can tell, you already have cut variation from the definition of selectionregards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

1- more reproduction of the one then the other,
2- replacement/encroachment of one by the other,
3- reproduction or no reproduction of the one.Natural Selection refers to nr 3. Nr 3 can cover all yes, both scenario's in number 1 and 2, but nr 1 and nr 2 cannot cover all. You define natural Selection as nr 1. But then when I asked why you include variation, you refer to number 2, your reason for including variation is the limited shared resources etc.. that is Darwin's original Malthusian formulation of selection meaning encroachment/replacement.Uniform populations are also being selected, and we can see it happening now a lot with endangered species, that the negative selective pressures on many species/organisms are mounting. Variation is basicly irrellevant with endangered species, eventhough the population may be varying. Endangered species are not covered by a definition of selection that includes variation.I don't understand why you don't just take the definition that's the most powerful to use. Why you don't just take the definition most flexible to use, why you are sticking to a definition that says, well this planet goes around the sun faster then the other planet, this building is taller then that building, this oganism reproduces faster then that organism. It's such a load of rubbish.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

As far as I can tell, you have no point

---

And that Syamsu is the most telling point concerning your lack of understanding.

quote:

---

Of course it is not good enough to bring out the old, it survives longer and therefore it reproduces more, to adequately describe how large size contributes reproduction.

---

Guess that means that your dead frogs are reproducing, eh Syamsu. The paper, and the abstract, refered to the linkage of size and timing of metamorphasis to the survival of individuals to sexual maturity (I can explain that term to you if you like although your parents should have already).

quote:

---

We don't want all our biologypapers to contain the exactsame words, with the only difference being the name of the trait in question

---

Reading comprehension problems again Syamsu, the abstract clearly states that it was demonstrating something which was assumed, but never demonstrated.As to your comments re: mutation and blending. Syamsu, I do not know which is more amusing, your ignorance or your arrogance surrounding your ignorance. In my experience that arrogance in support of ignorance can ONLY have a religious underpinning. OK, I will go slow here so that maybe you can understand this. A gene is a particulate entity as, by itselt, it has a well defined number of potential outcomes. Potential outcomes are: it is not turned on and produces nothing, it is turned on to varying degrees and produces one of a predefined set of proteins (a "single" gene can produce more than one protein based on different sites for the arrangement of the introns and exons in the mRNA as well as different polyadenylation sites for the tail), it is fully turned on and produces protein as described in the previous example. Now, here is where it gets even more interesting. Phenotypic expression can be particulate w.r.t. observed phenotype, i.e. Mendels peas, or it can be blended w.r.t. observed phenotype from several different genes which effect that particular phenotype , i.e. size, certian aspects of coloration, et., or from blending of the effects from teh same genes but from incomplete dominant/recessive traits where a blending of traits is observed. I used blended rather than mixed becasue mixed can result in a paticulate pattern, i.e. calico cats, whereas blended truly results in a gradient of effects based on teh interaction of the particulate genes.Boy, I suggest that you do not try to teach me, or many of the others on this board, genetics, molecular biology, or biochemistry until you understand them. Which you patently do not.

quote:

---

I use saltation the way you used the word to refer to a sheep with 5 legs.

---

Actually Syamsu, you were the one who brought up the 5 legged sheep, whether from ignorance of what I was discussing or in an attempt to redirect the discussion from the area where you where gittin' a whuppin'. Here was your post
Another error by Syamsu
Here was were you first mentioned saltationism
Another Syamsu goof. I actually posed my question in response to your statement.
Syamsu, is the logical foundation to your arguements so lame that you are loosing track of your own statements?
No wonder your house of supposition is so rickety.[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 05-28-2003]Links corrected[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 05-28-2003]

I cannot believe that you are still going on along
this line after all this time!!!Endangered species ARE subject to natural selection just
like any other species. The problem for endangered species
is that the modifications to their environments are so
rapid that no amount of variation will enable species survival.
Usually these changes are wrought by man at an alarming rate.Rapid environmental change leads to extinction ... i.e. none
of a population have what it takes to survive the change.The best definition to take is the one that matches most closely
the observations that led to the concept in the first place.Whether an individual reproduces or not does not have an impact
on the population as a whole.It is whether significant groups of individuals reproduce, and
how many offspring they leave that impacts the next generation.Natural selection is quite straightforward unless one decides
to take a dislike for it on some obscure grounds.

I have had this basic discussion with Syamsu, at length
in two threads that got closed because they were going
nowhere.It's nice to see that people can assimilate what they
have learned into their thinking (That was sarcasm BTW).

Actually I believe that you are more correct than you give yourself credit for.He, Syamsu, learned nothing and was therefore able to assimilate the same into his "thinking". ------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz