What makes this organism any different than a virus which needs a host?
Besides there not being either viruses or hosts in the situation the paper describes? I wonder if you even read the abstract.
My question is what is a species?
Mayr defined it as
quote:"... groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
In other words, a "species" is a reproductive community.
It seems ambiguous, especially when juxtaposed to a subspecie.
The ambiguity of species is consistent with the idea that all species are simply different clusters on a continuous range of variation in organisms, which is another way of saying "all organisms belong to the same kind", or "all organisms are descended by modification from a single common ancestor."
If species were undeniably discreet, that would be evidence for the sort of species essentialism that you're suggesting. For as much as you say "dogs never beget cats" or whatever, the fact that it's somewhat ambiguous about what it means to be a cat or a dog is proof that we're not looking at separate, created "kinds," but rather organisms who share some characteristics and are divergent in other characteristics because they evolved separately from a single ancestor.
What then is the difference between specie and subspecie?
The singular of "species" is "species", as we continually remind you. There's no such thing as "subspecie". Subspecies may or may not even exist; biologists may refer to some individual group as a "subspecies" when it appears that group is reproductively isolated from the main populations but has not diverged sufficiently either morphologically or genetically to be classified as a new species.
In other words biologists call something a "subspecies" when they think that it's going to become a new species in the future, but hasn't yet.
That in no way proves they were related to one another.
The fact that morphological cladistics is proven essentially correct by phylogenetics in nearly every case is sufficient confirmation for the validity of using morphology to determine those kinds of relationships.
The truth of the matter is that the morphology of organisms is determined by their genetics, obviously, so morphology is a reliable guide to the sort of genetic relationships you're talking about. You're thinking about it the wrong way, you see. It's not a matter of organisms with similar morphology being forced to share similar genetics.
It's the other way around. Organisms with similar genetics share similar morphologies, they're forced to, because genetics determines morphology. Therefore morphology is a reliable guide to cladistics (although a colleague of my wife once remarked "DNA doesn't lie".)
I'm sorry to hear that you do not consider calling me 'ignorant' is not an insult. I wonder if you would consider yourself insulted if I was to say to you, as you said to me, "Your understanding of evolution, if we can even call it "understanding" when you don't understand it at all,...". A personal disparagement is an insult. It It is not added information and it is not reasoned argument. It is purely and simply a personal attack upon your opponent as a person. IMO, you need to learn some manners;-- including how to recognise when you have personally and gratuitously offended someone, and how to aplologise for doing so.
As for my personal hypothesis wrt evolution's driving force, it is "idiosyncratic" in the sense that it certainly deviates from the prevailing darwinian understanding, but it is not peculiar to myself alone. It daily acquires greater credence among those who treat organisms as whole systems, including developmental biologists. I do not consider calling my understanding of evolution 'idiosyncratic' an insult. I do consider calling it 'ignorant' an insult.
And may I ask what is meant by your expression, "Man up, Elmer." It is unfamilar to me, but it sounds like an insinuated disparagement of my masculinity. Is it? Next you offer, "If being wrong hurts your little fee-fees,", insinuating with your 'baby-talk' that I am infantile. That, too, is insulting and flaming; i.e., nothing but trolling. And though you apparently do not realize it, you telling me that I am wrong does not prove that I am, in fact, wrong. Your saying, "You haven't been insulted. You've simply been shown to be wrong.", does not disguise the fact that although I have not been shown to be wrong, I have definitely been insulted.
From now on, I'll thank you to keep any negative thoughts and evaluations you have of me as a person, strictly to yourself. Both in your posts to me, or in your posts to anyone else. If you find yourself unable to do that, (and apparently you do have great difficulty in remaing civil--are you an adolescent?) our correspondence will come to an abrupt end. If you would prefer to end it here and now, that would be fine with me.
As to the rest of your last post, you say--
quote:
That's not true. For instance, molar ratio is a dimensionless ratio, as well.
Yes, and it's an abstraction as well. All arithmetic ratioes are abstractions, since they are not concrete things in themselves, nor numeric quantities of concrete things, but are mental concepts re the _relationships_ between different concrete things. Relationships, comparisons, evaluations and the like are all conceptual, notional; that is, abstract, and not concrete/empirical. Frankly, "dimensionless ratio" strikes me as a redundancy, but perhaps you can inform me of a 'dimensional' ratio, since arithmetic is not my field of expertise, either. I googled, "dimensional ratio", but got no actual cases, out of 4,900,000 possibles. (Well, OK, I didn't check out every one of the possibles.)
quote:
Anything given in, say, "parts per million" or "percent by weight" is a dimensionless ratio, but there's nothing abstract about it.
You can call them "dimensionless" ratioes, or just plain ratioes, but they are still abstractions, like it or not. If you wish to make a ratio 'concrete' by turning it into a specified 'measurement' of a concrete and actual object, then I wish you luck, as there is no such thing as a "dimensionless measurement", by definition. It's a contradiction in terms.
quote:
If that is all that it is, then I really have to wonder why it is not simply stated that way?
Well, I just did state it that way. What are you asking, exactly?
I'm asking exactly what I asked. Why is it called 'fitness', when in fact it is 'differential reproduction'?
quote:
When individuals have differential reproductive success as a result of heritable physical advantages (which we know now are genetic), that is evolution.
So now you are telling me that positive differential reproduction which is the direct result of heritable ( by which I assume you mean 'genetically determined') physical advantages equals the origin of novel morphological and behavioural variations in organisms. Umh, I don't agree with this.
quote:
And again, 'molarity', as a concept, is an abstraction.
No, it's not. It's the measurement of exactly how many molecules of a substance are in a solution.
If 'molarity' is concept then it is by definition an abstraction. If molarity is a ratio then it is not a measurement, but a comparison, and is still an abstraction. One salt molecule per 20 water molecules is not a measurement. A measurement is a determination of the dimensions of one thing. A ratio is a statement of relationship/association/correlation wrt the dimensions/quantities of two concrete things. As per my example, salt and water. Statements of relationships/associations/correlation are always mental, conceptual, that is, abstract; even when the comparison is between the particular measurements of two different concrete things. Calling a ratio a measurement is wrong. A measurement when applied to a particular concrete entity is empirical. A ratio is always an arithmetical abstraction. If your 'fitness' is a 'dimensionless ratio', then it is an arithmetical, statistical abstraction, and is an aspect of statistical math, not empirical biology. And yes, I have heard from the people on this board who believe that biology _is_ mathematics, and vice versa. I have no idea how to talk to people who believe such things.
quote:
If you're counting the molecules,
Counting the molecules of one concrete thing is a measurement, and is concerned with dimension. Taking the separate dimensions/measurements of two different things and correlating those measurements is not itself a measurement. From American Heritage dictionary--
"di·men·sion (d-mn'shn, d-) n. A measure of spatial extent, especially width, height, or length. Extent or magnitude; scope. Often used in the plural: a problem of alarming dimensions. Aspect; element: “He's a good newsman, and he has that extra dimension” (William S. Paley). Mathematics. The least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the points in a space. The range of such a coordinate. Physics. A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the dimensions of length divided by time."
Note that the last, the reference to velocity, refers to velocity as the quotient of the measured dimension of length divided by the measured dimension of time. Except that it should not do that, since it is against the rules to divide apples by oranges. So, apologies to all you physicists, but velocity is a ratio, an arithmetic abstraction; not a measurement. Just like 'molarity' and 'fitness'.
"ra·tio (r'sh, r'sh-') n., pl. -tios. Relation in degree or number between two similar things. The relative value of silver and gold in a currency system that is bimetallic. Mathematics. A relationship between two quantities, normally expressed as the quotient of one divided by the other: The ratio of 7 to 4 is written 7:4 or 7/4." (Am. Her. Dict.)
quote:
how can that be abstract?
Determining the quantity or number of one set of concrete entities is measurement, and that is empirical. Two cows, 4 legs, a 3'long tail, and all that. Comparing the quantities or number of two different concrete entities is correlation, not measurement.
"cor·re·la·tion (kr'-l'shn, kr'-) n. A causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship, especially a structural, functional, or qualitative correspondence between two comparable entities: a correlation between drug abuse and crime. Statistics. The simultaneous change in value of two numerically valued random variables: the positive correlation between cigarette smoking and the incidence of lung cancer; the negative correlation between age and normal vision. An act of correlating or the condition of being correlated."
That's no more abstract than, say, seeing that there are ten apples in front of me. That's about as concrete a measurement as it gets.[/quote]
Yeah, "10 apples"is an empirical measurement, because it is dimensional, a given quantity. But that doesn't relate to 'fitness' or 'molarity'. Those things are correlations. The equivalent would be the correlation between the number of apples on a tree and the size of that apple tree.
quote:
But this does not seem to apply to 'fitness', at least not in your definition, because there does not seem to be any concrete object involved.
The individual and the individual's genes are the concrete objects involved. Are you saying that individuals exist?
Actually, your definition of 'fitness' does not refer to an individual's genes, but to the ratio of the sum of instances of a particular 'allele' correlated to the sum of differing alleles in the genotype of a population. It's the ratio that 'fitness' refers to, not the given allele/gene and not the genotype in toto.
Are you saying that individuals do not exist?!?
quote:
"Fitness" was for hundreds of years, and in fact still is, defined exactly as I define it.
"Noun: fitness fitnus The quality of being suitable "they had to prove their fitness for the position" - fittingness
Good physical condition; being in shape or in condition - physical fitness
Fitness to traverse the seas - seaworthiness
The quality of being qualified Derived forms: fitnesses
See also: fit, seaworthy, unseaworthy
Type of: competence, competency, condition, shape, soundness, suitability, suitableness
Antonym: unfitness"
Any old dictionary could have told you as much. You should use them.
See also--
"fit (adj.) "suited to the circumstances, proper," c.1440, of unknown origin, perhaps from M.E. noun fit "an adversary of equal power" (c.1250), which is perhaps connected to fit (n.1). The verb meaning "to be the right shape" is first attested 1581. First record of fitness is from 1580. Survival of the fittest (1867) coined by H. Spencer. fitness | Search Online Etymology Dictionary
I'm sorry to hear that you do not consider calling me 'ignorant' is not an insult.
I don't recall any instance where I've referred to you as "ignorant." Could you quote me using that word?
I wonder if you would consider yourself insulted if I was to say to you, as you said to me,
I would consider myself challenged to display an appropriate understanding of the subject at hand. I'm puzzled why it is that you instead take that language as a cue to storm off in a huff.
As for my personal hypothesis wrt evolution's driving force, it is "idiosyncratic" in the sense that it certainly deviates from the prevailing darwinian understanding
And have you ever stopped to wonder why that might be the case? Why you hold a position so contrary to the prevailing scientific consensus?
And may I ask what is meant by your expression, "Man up, Elmer."
It means "stop taking it personally when the rest of us engage you in argument and tell you that you're wrong." You're falling all over yourself to play the victim here, when the rest of us are guilty of nothing more than rebutting your arguments.
From now on, I'll thank you to keep any negative thoughts and evaluations you have of me as a person, strictly to yourself.
I'll make you a deal. If you can keep the drama-queen whining to an absolute minimum and focus only on the arguments that are presented to you, instead of using feigned outrage as a front to avoid addressing arguments, I won't have any reason to make any evaluations of you as a person, except for positive ones.
Deal?
Yes, and it's an abstraction as well.
But of course it isn't, Elmer. There's nothing abstract about counting how many molecules are present.
Frankly, "dimensionless ratio" strikes me as a redundancy, but perhaps you can inform me of a 'dimensional' ratio, since arithmetic is not my field of expertise, either.
Huh, that's funny. You don't know any arithmetic, you don't know any chemistry (since you had to look up "molarity", one of the most basic chemical concepts), and you obviously don't know much about biology except what you were taught in middle school, most of which was surely wrong.
I'm forced to wonder - what do you know, Elmer, that leads you to conclude that the vast majority consensus of biologists are completely and utterly wrong? Does it really make sense for you to maintain a greater level of expertise than the biological community when the simplest concepts in science are all new to you?
I'm asking exactly what I asked. Why is it called 'fitness', when in fact it is 'differential reproduction'?
It's not differential reproduction, it's the explanation for non-random differential reproduction.
But maybe I just don't understand what you're asking.
So now you are telling me that positive differential reproduction which is the direct result of heritable ( by which I assume you mean 'genetically determined') physical advantages equals the origin of novel morphological and behavioural variations in organisms. Umh, I don't agree with this.
...and? So what? Agree or not, we have abundant physical evidence that this is the case.
A measurement when applied to a particular concrete entity is empirical.
But that's exactly what we're talking about - making measurements of particular concrete entities - entities like solutions, or individuals, or populations. That's the basis of science.
How can making measurements be abstractions? There's not a single scientist in the world who shares your misconceptions about how science is done and interpreted, Elmer. You're not making any sense. How can anything be more concrete than what is being measured? Isn't measureability essentially the very essence of concreteness?
Except that it should not do that, since it is against the rules to divide apples by oranges.
Whose rules?
Are you saying that individuals do not exist?!?
No, you're the one saying that individuals do not exist, because how else could measurements about them be abstract? That's why I asked, Elmer.
Maybe the history of the internet isn't your field, either, Elmer, but I assure you that the common use of the World Wide Web only dates back to the early 90's, so a definition from an internet dictionary does not establish that something has been defined "for hundreds of years."
I'll make you a deal. If you can keep the drama-queen whining to an absolute minimum and focus only on the arguments that are presented to you, instead of using feigned outrage as a front to avoid addressing arguments, I won't have any reason to make any evaluations of you as a person, except for positive ones.
Crash, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Elmer has yet to answer even the simplest of questions.
ELMER. I REPEAT:
WHAT ABOUT ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE?
Answer the question!
Your contribution so far, after 12 posts, is: "Huh-uh!"
Once again, please take moderation issues to the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0 thread. This thread is not about whether you've been insulted or not. If you believe you've been insulted in violation of the Forum Guidelines, then please take it to the aforementioned thread. Keep your discussion here focused on the topic. Thanks!
Thanks. Happy to be here. The board is much more active than I had anticipated, however, so I won't be able to keep up with all the resonses, at this rate. I hope that you and the others will bear with me as I attempt to deal with as much as time and energy will allow.
Not a problem. The only suggestion I would make would be to stick to one element at a time and focus on it. Say "natural selection" ...
Actually, (as I explained to bluegenes, I believe it was), the assumption I was referring to is the fundamental cosmological postulate of materialism and its metaphysical offshoots. But certainly 'natural selection' is a notional postulate that has ruled evolutionary biology ever since Darwin introduced the term as an illustrative analogy to stock breeding.
Yes, instead of selection by people interested in breeding certain traits in domesticated animals, this is the selection that occurs naturally with no input from man nor supernatural (otherwise it would not be natural eh?) entity. One thing that occurs naturally is mating of organisms, and rarely is mating purely random, due to distance and opportunity, so mating can involve selection occurring by natural processes. Different individuals within populations may have different levels of sexual activity and fecundity, resulting in different numbers of offspring from different individuals. It is a natural result of the differences between individuals.
In some species there is sever sexual competition, and in these cases we can say that sexual selection is occurring -- the natural selection of mates by individuals based on individual preferences. This kind of selection can result in run-away selection for desired features that may even inhibit the survivability of the carriers. The peacock tail, for example, both attracts predators and makes it difficult for the fully endowed males to escape.
Other aspects of natural selection involves survival, not of major catastrophic events, like floods and fires, but involving everyday health, nutrition and being able to avoid sever sickness. The differences in health, nutrition and sickness can result in selection -- they are healthy and have the energy to mate and take advantage of the opportunities better than those who are sick.
Catastrophes tend to eliminate individuals that were unlucky -- they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, often with all individuals of a species in that area being killed -- this is not natural selection because it is not selection, survival does not depend on hereditary traits but in being lucky. A tree falling on an organism and killing it is not natural selection either, but such chance events can effect the future evolution due to genetic drift of the remaining hereditary traits in the population (natural selection is one process of many in evolution).
Natural selection is the process that selects hereditary traits from generation to generation through differential survival and reproduction of individuals within populations. The selection is similar to that of breeding programs, but it occurs naturally.
Well, call me old-fashioned, but attributing 'selection', an activity performed intelligently and volitionally by aware beings capable of weighing, comparing and contrasting the relative merits of different alternatives, i.e., making a choice and acting upon it, and attributing that power, that ability, that intellectual capacity, to a general abstraction called 'nature', is the essence of personification, i.e., "A figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities". Show me where I'm wrong.
You're wrong because you are going at it from the wrong direction. You first assume that all selection -- even in breeding programs -- is only due to intelligent interaction, when often traits are linked so that you get trait {A} with trait {B} whether you want {A} or not. By this mean YOU personify selection as an intellectual process. Second you activate "nature" to be the source of the intelligent interaction that makes the selection, when the fact is that natural selection is just selection that happens naturally. It is natural that some animals get sick and die while others do not. It is natural that some animals die of thirst during droughts while others do not. It is natural that some animals die of hunger during famines while others do not. All of these individual deaths are selection that occurs naturally.
quote:To think of evolution being in any way directed towards some goal is totally false.
Well, that is a statement of your belief, but until you can justify that opinion, I respectfully disagree.
It's simple to demonstrate that the obverse is false. Assume evolution is directed towards a purpose, then each step, each stage, each result of selection must be in the same direction, always building on previous selections step by step towards the goal.
Now we look at the evidence and we see events like the Galapagos Finches and the Peppered Moths (and many many others) where we see evolution proceed in one direction (larger beaks, dark wings) but then turn around and proceed in the other direction (smaller beaks, light wings). This falsifies direction.
We can also look at organisms like cyanobacteria that are virtually the same as they were 3.5 billion years ago, they have not evolved into something else. This falsifies purpose.
Well, I don't believe than "man [was created] to rule earth". I don't believe that anything was created to rule earth. That does not mean that I believe that that the universe, the earth, and the biosphere exist for no reason, no point, no purpose.
That is your prerogative, however that doesn't mean that evolution needs to be involved in any way other than to provide a source of sufficiently intellectually developed creatures able to contemplate your philosophy. It doesn't have to result in humans. The question you will tend towards is whether intelligence is self selecting or provides a benefit such that any creature with a sufficient level of intelligence will reach the desired result.
I'm not here to debate theology and to speculate on the nature of god/s, but since you bring it up, your statement depends upon what you mean by 'created', 'care', and so on. It is possible to care without being able to intervene. Ask any parent, or a friend forced to watch a friend make a bad mistake. But when it comes to the bottom line, I would have to say that man made this bed, and he is going to have to lay in it, or re-make it. No divine (or technological) '7th cavalry' is going to get him out of this mess and whisk him off to 'a better place'. I suggest that one way to start the reformation would be to junk 'fitness' and start looking for painless ways to reduce human overpopulation, ASAP.
Actually you brought it up in your discussion of global warming. Yet those organisms that survive whatever ecological and climatic change occurs will be fit, selected naturally to continue living and breeding. You can try to ignore this aspect, but that will not change the fact that natural selection will continue to occur, selection that will occur naturally to differential between the "fit" and the "unfit" in the coming generations.
Well, yeah, sure. Some huge anthropomorphic god suddenly appears and says that if we don't stop global warming and rampant environmental destruction, he's going to kill us all, mean and slow, with a plague of nasty boils, or something. But I'm fairly confident that that just won't happen.
So you agree that any "faith-based" approach is counter productive?
quote:The issue is that for a genetically tail-less mouse the lack of tail is a trait,
No, it is not. It is a lack, or absence, of a trait. You are saying that nothing equates to something. That which is not, is not anything which is. Kind of a logical axiom, that. The absence of something is not something else, it is only nothing. Unfortunately geneticists ignore this fact, as it it is necessary for them to ignore it if their notion (of novel adaptive traits arising from damaged genomes) is to have any credence.
No, it is a difference, a characteristic, a condition, that distinguishes one type of organism from another. Having a tail would not be a trait if not having a tail was not a trait.
In a genetic sense the difference between the tail condition and the tail-less condition is a difference in genes. In some cases it may be a gene is not fully expressed, so the tail does not form, and in others it could be that the gene is blocked by another gene. And either condition may be a recessive, tailed or tail-less. Humans are tail-less, and it is a trait, a characteristic, a condition, that distinguishes them and other apes from primates with tails.
I have seen Lamarckism, but nowhere in Lamarck's 200 year old understanding of evolution did I see anything that suggested that organisms re-expressed the physical deformities accidentally acquired by their forebears. Weismann was a sophist who set up a strawman of Lamarkian theory, (albeit that Lamarckian theory was quite primitive in modern terms), in order to sell neo-darwinism at a time when Darwin's original 'theory', "Natural Selection", was falling into public disfavour.
Yet it is an historical fact that Lamarkism, whether it was promoted by Lamark or by Darwin, involved the concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics, it is an historical fact that experiments with cutting off the tails of mice occurred to test it, and it is also an historical fact that this concept has been invalidated.
quote:A German developmental biologist, August Weismann, helped propel Lamarck into obscurity when he tried to test Lamarck’s theory that organisms pass on survival-oriented traits acquired through their interaction with the environment. In one of Weismann’s experiments, he cut off the tails of male and female mice and mated them. Weismann argued that if Lamarck’s theory were correct, the parents should pass on their tail-less state to future generations. The first generation of mice was born with tails. Weismann repeated the experiment for 21 more generations, but not one tail-less mouse was born, leading Weismann to conclude that Lamarck’s notion of inheritance was wrong.
Now you say that "Weismann was a sophist who set up a strawman of Lamarkian theory," yet the theory was that "organisms gained aquired traits through use and disuse" and cutting off tails would certainly result in disuse and prevent all use of tails.
Well, I have heard this a number of times, but it does not answer the question asked--just what is this 'selection', in empirical, (i.e., scientific as opposed to notional, philosophical) terms?
Selection that occurs naturally. The result of normal (natural) differential success in living and mating of different individual organisms within a population.
BTW, I've heard some geneticists refer to 'selection' as something operating at the genetic, molecular level. And at the cellular level. Indeed, I'm sure some of them refer to nucleotides in terms of 'selection'. None of which tells us what 'selection' actually is.
Those elements may contribute to the normal (natural) differential success in living and mating of different individual organisms within a population, but they won't be all the factors involved (this is why selection occurs on the phenotype not just the genotype).
No idea what you mean by this, but if you are saying that "NS" creates nothing, I agree.
Natural selection creates change in species from generation to generation, far from nothing, but there is no creative force behind it -- purpose and direction being already refuted.
Enough for tonight. I'll continue later (it may be sunday).
For now the main point is natural selection is selection that occurs naturally.
As for my personal hypothesis wrt evolution's driving force, it is "idiosyncratic" in the sense that it certainly deviates from the prevailing darwinian understanding, but it is not peculiar to myself alone. It daily acquires greater credence among those who treat organisms as whole systems, including developmental biologists.
By this I take it you mean that the view you're espousing is not uniquely your own, but is one that is gaining acceptance within science. If I understand you correctly, how do you arrive at this conclusion?
About abstractions, it isn't your definition of abstraction that is in question, but your claim that anything that is an abstraction can be dismissed simply because it is an abstraction. 49.26% of the American population are males. If you want to call it an abstraction, go ahead, but you can't dismiss it simply because it's an abstraction. You can challenge the data gathering techniques and the analysis and all that sort of stuff, but you can't say something silly like, "I don't believe 49.26% of the population are males because it's just an abstraction."
So call fitness an abstraction if you like, but the concept is strongly rooted in reality and has great relevance for biology. You'll have to challenge the concept of fitness on the merits, not just call it "an arithmetical abstraction from the non-empirical world of mathematics" (quote is from your Message 80).
I don't know if anyone has offered the Wikipedia definition of fitness yet, but the opening paragraph is, I think, a more clear statement than I've seen so far in this thread:
Wikipedia writes:
Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory. It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the individual's genes in all the genes of the next generation. If differences in individual genotypes affect fitness, then the frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations; the genotypes with higher fitness become more common. This process is called natural selection.
Yours is a very long, albeit very interesting post. I probably won't be able to deal with it in one go, but I'll bite off as big a chunk as I can.
You say--
quote:
Yes, instead of selection by people interested in breeding certain traits in domesticated animals, this is the selection that occurs naturally with no input from man nor supernatural (otherwise it would not be natural eh?) entity.
A rock is natural. Water is natural. Can a rock "choose" it's location, what it does, or what happens to it? Can water "choose" when to evaporate, when to condense, when to preipitate, and where to go once it hits the ground? If 'natural selection' is 'natural', how come it doesn't pertain to all of nature, but only that part of nature that is alive?
Now, the word 'selection', up intil Darwin, always meant to intentionally, deliberately, although not necessarily consciously, 'choosing', 'picking', 'taking' one thing in preference to another. Doing that always involved awareness, values/criteria, goals, and ability. These things were always properties of the 'selector', not necessarily the 'selected'. It should be noted that only living, sentient beings possess such properties.
Then came Darwin, who tried to make an analogy between the dynamic 'selecting' done by stockbreeders like himself, and what happens to organisms in the wild. What he did was to imply that there was a sentient being, call it "Mother Nature" or "The Great Flying Spagghetti Monster", or what you will, that acted like human stock breeders and picked one creature to live but picked another for drowning, or otherwise eliminating. As a literary or pedagogical device it was quite effective, so long as you didn't take it literally. Taking it literally was mere superstition. Like believing in the 'angel of death', or, 'the grim reaper'. But, of, course, thousands of people did take it literally, just as millions of people take biblical creation myths literally.
Now, a few bright souls realised that they were doing with 'natural selection' was just exactly what other people were doing with Adam and Eve, and so went to work on chenging the meaning of the word 'selection' in order to take the 'spirits' out of it. To do that they changed the focus of the word. As I said, 'selection', since the beginnings of the English language, was something dynamic that was intentionally done by someone to something or to somebody. Now it was said to mean something passive, that is, stuff that just happened to something or somebody for any old reason. By changing 'selection' from something that was 'done', into into something that was 'done to', the awareness, values/criteria, goals, and ability were eliminated. Stuff can happen to, or be done to, anything at all, even rocks and water, and it can be purly accidental, i.e., random.
For some reason people just stood by and watched this corruption of the language take place, and so now, here we are with it imbedded in the language like a virus that cannot be gotten rid of.
quote:
One thing that occurs naturally is mating of organisms, and rarely is mating purely random, due to distance and opportunity, so mating can involve selection occurring by natural processes.
Well, I don't think we should introduce 'sexual selection', which a/only applies to sexully reproducing organisms and b/ is, in those rare instances in which it is truly present, is a dynamic, intentional activity, as opposed to the passive, accidental experience intrinsic to natural selection, until after we have thoroughly determined the nature of 'natural selection'. So I'm going to skip down a bit.
quote:
Other aspects of natural selection involves survival, not of major catastrophic events, like floods and fires, but involving everyday health, nutrition and being able to avoid sever sickness.
What do you mean by "aspects of natural selection"? Defining characteristics? Natural properties? If 'natural selection' means the experiences that might befall a passive entity, then everything and anything can be an 'aspect' of 'natural selection', including both dying [being killed] right now, and not dying [being killed] right now. Kind of makes the term, "NS", both nebulous and vacuous. I think that scientific terms should be a lot more specific, definite, and meaningful than that.
quote:
The differences in health, nutrition and sickness can result in selection -- they are healthy and have the energy to mate and take advantage of the opportunities better than those who are sick.
Well, aside from absurd truisms, such as,-- the sick are not as healthy as the hale and hearty, the stupid are not as bright as the intelligent, the old are older than the young, the slow are not as fast as the swift, the blind do not see as well as the sighted, the weak are not so powerful as the strong,-- and on and on, just exactly what is it that you are trying to say? The race is to the swift, the struggle to the strong--usually. We get that. It's not rocket science. In fact, it's not science at all. It's just a meaningless fact of life that is probably just as apparent to cheetahs chasing gazelles, and gazelles being chased by cheetahs, as it is to you and me.
quote:
Catastrophes tend to eliminate individuals that were unlucky -- they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, often with all individuals of a species in that area being killed -- this is not natural selection because it is not selection, survival does not depend on hereditary traits but in being lucky. A tree falling on an organism and killing it is not natural selection either, but such chance events can effect the future evolution due to genetic drift of the remaining hereditary traits in the population (natural selection is one process of many in evolution).
In short, anything can affect mortality, and anything that affects mortality can affect reproduction, and anything that affects reproduction affects 'evolution', and since, basically, everything that that affects mortality, from birth defects to broken legs to catching a virus to being bitten by a shark is, in the vast majority of cases, a matter of pure chance, I guess we can reduce this to 'chance=evolution', right? Or is it, "chance=natural selection"? Or is it both, in which case "Chance = natural selection = evolution"?
quote:
Natural selection is the process that selects hereditary traits from generation to generation through differential survival and reproduction of individuals within populations. The selection is similar to that of breeding programs, but it occurs naturally.
As pointed out earlier, darwinian 'natural selection' no longer bears any resemblence to organismic selection, since organismic selection is a dynamic thing that an organism does, whereas 'natural selection' refers to a passive organism that has things done to it; accidentally, by chance, more often than not.
quote:
"Well, call me old-fashioned, but attributing 'selection', an activity performed intelligently and volitionally by aware beings capable of weighing, comparing and contrasting the relative merits of different alternatives, i.e., making a choice and acting upon it, and attributing that power, that ability, that intellectual capacity, to a general abstraction called 'nature', is the essence of personification, i.e., "A figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities". Show me where I'm wrong."
You're wrong because you are going at it from the wrong direction. You first assume that all selection -- even in breeding programs -- is only due to intelligent interaction,
Of course I do. That is what the word 'selection' means, and only meant, up until neo-darwinists transmogrified the meaning from active to passive, from 'done' to 'done to', from intentional to accidental, from teleological to ateleological, from value/goal based to random, back in the late 19th century. You darwinists are the only one's who believe that it means anything else.
quote:
when often traits are linked so that you get trait {A} with trait {B} whether you want {A} or not.
Sorry, but how did we get from 'natural selection' to genetics and the intricacies of genetic inheritance?!? Let's watch out for the 'non sequiturs', shall we?
quote:
By this mean YOU personify selection as an intellectual process.
I'm not "personifying" anything. How can talking about something that persons, (and all other organisms) actually do, be a case of "personification"? Perhaps you are unfamiliar with that word--
"per·son·i·fi·ca·tion (pr-sn'-f-k'shn) n. 1/The act of personifying. 2/A person or thing typifying a certain quality or idea; an embodiment or exemplification: “He's invisible, a walking personification of the Negative” (Ralph Ellison). 3/A figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities or are represented as possessing human form, as in Hunger sat shivering on the road or Flowers danced about the lawn. Also called prosopopeia. [bold added] 4/Artistic representation of an abstract quality or idea as a person. [Am. Her. Dict.]
Number three is the sense in which Darwin used "Natural Selection". Neo-darwinists, trying to make the term 'scientific' instead of literary, and in keeping with their materialist/mechanist worldview, changed Darwin's personification into that other thing I've already described, above. I'm just sticking with the original, true meaning of the word, 'selection'. I'm not "personifying" things like inanimate objects like "genes", and abstractions like "Mother Nature", with mental abilities they do not possess; the way you darwinists are doing.
quote:
Second you activate "nature" to be the source of the intelligent interaction that makes the selection,
No, I don't elevate "Nature", or any other fanciful abstraction, "to be the source of the intelligent interaction that makes the selection". That's what Darwin did, but not anything I'd ever do. What words of mine ever gave you this false impression?
quote:
when the fact is that natural selection is just selection that happens naturally.
Uhm, tautologies aren't really that enlightening, you know.
quote:
It is natural that some animals get sick and die while others do not. It is natural that some animals die of thirst during droughts while others do not. It is natural that some animals die of hunger during famines while others do not. All of these individual deaths are selection that occurs naturally.
Well, to be truthful, the only indisputable thing that can be said here is that they are instances mortality that occurs naturally, as opposed to instances of mortality that occur artificially, as in wars and slaughterhouses. In what sense there is any 'selection' involved, you'll have to spell out for me, unless you mean that neo-darwinian corruption of the word as I described it earlier. See above.
I did offer Elmer the wiki definition over 30 posts ago. Twice, as a matter of fact.
What you'll be dealing with here will be semantics and philosophy, but don't expect any science (I doubt if you are!).
The line is "I'm not a creationist, but materialism is wrong".
Translation:
fantasy boy writes:
"I don't want to consider myself to be a creationist, but if I were honest with myself, that's exactly what I am."
The traditional play with words is to substitute "design" for "creation". Here we have a variation, which is only linguistic.
So, evolution must have meaning, or purpose, or direction.
Translation:
fantasy boy writes:
"I want the existence of my God and his intent to be recognized by science. I find the apparent lack of direction in biological evolution by random mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift to be personally distasteful, therefore it must be wrong, therefore "natural selection" must be a philosophical term.
What scientists should do is throw out their materialistic test tubes and Bunsen burners, and bring useful things like crystal balls and Ouija boards into the laboratories. Then they can investigate the true supernatural nature of the universe."
So, you ignorant adolescent bio-chemist, trade in your car for a broomstick, because the New Age of neo-Lamarckism is here.
Well, feel free to voice your opinion, but I've already shown that "Natural Selection" is nothing but a perfect example of personification.
Except you haven't. You've asserted it, and you put together a faulty argument based on your wrong impressions of what natural selection involves. It is life, mating and death occurring naturally with the result that some hereditary traits get passed on to following generations more than others due to differential opportunities for survival and mating caused by those traits in response to the ecology involved. Light shines naturally from the sun, and we do not need to personify the sun. Some light gets selected naturally to be absorbed in clouds, while other light gets selected naturally to shine on the land and water on earth, and we do not need to personify clouds. Thus we have naturally occurring patches of light and shade.
No supernatural force is needed. See quote from LaPlace in Message 128.
quote: ... it is the selection of individuals to pass on hereditary traits by their relative ability to survive and reproduce.
No doubt this sentence suggests something to you, but to me it is utterly meaningless. Natural Selection is "the selection of..." strikes me as tautologous. Well, not even that, since it's saying the same thing with the same words.
Creationists typically move the goalposts by changing what they were arguing about while pretending to be on the same theme. In this case you were talking about natural selection being personified and directed by some supernatural force, in effect a Supernatural Selection. The above sentence deals with the discrimination between Natural Selection and Supernatural Selection -- it is selection that occurs naturally.
Now if you don't (or want to pretend now that you don't) understand what selection is then that is a different issue
Notice the biological definition, which - seeing as we are discussing the science of biology - we will use (using definitions not used in science leads to misunderstanding or false statements). In Natural Selection we focus on the natural process, while in breeding programs we focus on the artificial process, but the result is the same -- different individuals in any breeding population of any species contribute to the following generation in different degrees due to the hereditary traits they posses.
quote:One phenotype may be better at swimming through a flood, another phenotype may be more attractive to mates or have higher fecundity. This is basic evolution science.
I hope not, since in fact 'this' is nothing but a litany of hypotheticals that are, in and of themselves, perfectly meaningless.
Actually it can be observed to happen, so this makes it far from "hypothetical" -- it is a fact. And again, what you "hope" has little effect on reality, it is perfectly capable of carrying on in complete indifference to what you "hope" one way or the other about reality.
quote: ... Calling natural selection by a different name won't change the process involved,
Where in your above-quoted passage do I call "Natural Selection" by "a different name"?
Oh let;s not be disingenuous now. What I was referring to was clearly quoted, which I repeat here:
The reason I bring this up is because I believe that "selection" is the 'key word' that defines both of the old paradigms, 'creationism' and 'darwinism', whereas "dynamic response" is key to the paradigm that Bertvan refers to, an organism-centered theory of evolution that might be thought of as, 'developmental evolution'; as opposed to the 'gene-centered' theory of evolution that is called, at least by its believers, "THE" theory of evolution.
Calling it "dynamic response" does not change the process. Scientists use standard words that are well defined and well understood. The benefit is that then people learning the science can learn the definitions and the terms used and be able to understand what the science says. Using different terms and definitions leads to confusion at best.
You are, I believe, completely correct to say that "Evolution as a whole is a dynamic response system". Unfortunately, since "Natural Selection" make the organism into the passive pawn of accidental agencies, there is no room in any dynamic, responsive theory of evolution for 'NS'. That is why there are two basic approaches to evolution--the neo-lamarckian 'dynamic organismic response' theory, and the neo-darwinian, 'passive organismic selection' theory.
See? When you use non-standard definitions based on poor understanding you end up with confusion, and when you combine it with poor logic (a false dichotomy) you suffer from bad conclusions. Your " neo-lamarckian 'dynamic organismic response' theory" is a meaningless phrase that still suffers from the fact that lamarckism, neo- or not, is invalidated: acquired characteristics are not passed on from generation to generation by hereditary traits, while your "neo-darwinian, 'passive organismic selection' theory" suffers from NOT being a definition of THE theory of (all types of) evolution -- rather it refers to genetic drift instead (a part of evolution). Also see the Neutral Theory of Evolution 101
Mating is not passive, surviving a flood, drought or famine is not passive, being well fed and healthy is not passive, life is not passive.
Now, I believe that evolution is an historical 'process', but surely "NS" is not the same process as 'evolution', or evolution and natural selection become one and the same thing. How is the 'process of natural selection' to be distinguished from the process of evolution itself?
What you believe is irrelevant. Mutation is not a part of Natural Selection nor is Genetic Drift. Evolution includes many processes of which Natural Selection is one.
I agree. Butit is the determinist view, and the determinist view is the mechanist view, and the mechanist view is the materialist view, and the gene-centered view of evolution, (call it fisherism, the modern synthesis, RMNS, or what you will), simply falls apart without genetic determinism.
And the kneebone is connected to the hipbone... Nope, rather this is a product of poor logic based on confusion. Now you have the opportunity to prove me wrong by substantiating your argument.
That's nice. Can I ask you again.? Just exactly what is this thing that you call "Natural Selection". Do you have a scientific, empirical (as opposed to notional, philosophical)definition for it, or don't you?
Several have been given, such as the wikipedia version, but how about we look at what a university teaching evolution says:
quote:natural selection Differential survival or reproduction of different genotypes in a population leading to changes in the gene frequencies of a population. For a more detailed explanation, see our resource on natural selection in Evolution 101.
quote:Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.
Darwin's grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood. To find out how it works, imagine a population of beetles:
If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that.
quote:Natural Selection is the differential reproduction of genotypes.
Note that both definitions are consistent with my arguments above.
quote:Then you are ignorant (uninformed) of the facts. This can be rectified.
I am happy to hear that. Please bring on those facts.
The fact that I have nowhere found any reason to believe that "NS" is a scientic phenomenon, rather than a fanciful notion, does not mean that I have nhot already searched high and low for such evidence empirical actuality. And my "apparent disinterest" is only apparent to you.
No, the "apparent disinterest" in finding out the facts is manifest in your ignorance of the facts, facts which are easy to find. I've already mentioned the Galapagos Finches and the Peppered Moths - which are also mentioned in the wikipedia article referred to above. We also have two threads on this forum where you can discuss these facts in more detail:
This because you expect that the stuff that you take for 'proof' of the empirical reality of NS as a causal mechanism for evolution SHOULD suffice tol convince me, but hasn't. You then leap to the conclusion that I haven't seen your 'proofs', and that the only way that that could happen is if I hadn't bothered to look. Well, it is true that what you and others consider to be 'proof' of "NS", (without ever defining it scientifically)is thrown about everywhere, Who has not heard of the "peppered moth", or of "Darwin's finches"? Trouble is, I do not draw the same inferences from those cases that you do, and there is no logical or empirical reason why I should.
The fact is that beak size in the population of Galapagos Finches as a whole changed from one generation to the next. The fact is that wing color in the population of Peppered Moths as a whole changed from one generation to the next. The fact is that these changes did NOT occur within individuals, NOR from parent to offspring by sudden mutations, rather the fact is that they were due to "Differential survival or reproduction of different genotypes in a population leading to changes in the gene frequencies of a population" (see Berkeley definition above) -- Natural Selection -- between those individuals that had the beneficial beak size or wing color. These are validated observations of fact.
So what are your conclusions and how do we test them for validity? If all you are doing is denying the facts then this is NOT an alternative explanation of the facts, it is no explanation, just denial of reality. You've already demonstrated that your logic is poor and your understanding of evolution in general and natural selection in specific is faulty, but here is your opportunity to present your alternative solution so we can see if it can stand.
Gee, and I thought that I had made it clear that I did not need someone to tell me to go somewhere else and read something else. I have no interest in 'argument by link', and I am genuinely offended that you assume that I have not read the wiki, or the TalkOrigins, or the encyclopediae, or the textbook definitions of "NS". I have. But they do not make any scientific sense. They speak of an abstraction as if it were a concrete reality, and that is a logical fallacy.
The question is whether you are interested in learning the truth. IF you are interested in learning the truth THEN you will pursue new knowledge. IF you refuse to pursue new knowledge THEN you are NOT interested in learning the truth.
I never said that we needed replace the concept of evolution with anything else. I said that we needed to replace materialism and its offshoots with so9mething else. But since it is the darwinian notion of evolution via 'chance plus genetic determinism plus chance coincidence' that is used to prop up materialism, it has to go as well.
So you don't need to change evolution, you just need to change evolution.
Here's an idea: present a secular alternative to "materialism" -- one that can be used by everybody regardless of belief. Otherwise you are attempting to impose some kind of faith on things where it doesn't apply, and that is basically immoral as well as counter productive. Creationists are always moaning about materialism and such, yet they never provide a secular alternative.
My point exactly. Let's stop doing that. After all, 150 years of untested philosophy is more than enough, I should think!
Is this kind of denial or wallowing in ignorance worth a response? It has been demonstrated that you are wrong, so the question is whether you will learn from that or ignore and deny it.
quote:Basing it on mythology would be rather ridiculous eh?
Yup. That's why all this 'spontaneous genetic generation' and "Natural Selection" stuff troubles me sometimes, makes me laugh at other times. Just like those Genesis myths, they trouble me to think that otherwise intelligent people take them seriously, but it also makes me laugh out loud that otherwise intelligent people take them seriously.
And yet people generally - and intelligent people in specific -ARE capable of learning the facts and determining the truth.
My philosophical position is not fixed in stone. I became a convinced darwinian while in middle school, but the evidence gradually turned me away from that notion and towards a better explanation for evolution. Even so, I was a darwinist for more years than I've been a non-darwinist, neo-lamarckian, 'devo-evo' type.
So what is your " non-darwinist, neo-lamarckian, 'devo-evo' type" explanation for the Galapagos Finches and the Peppered Moths? You say you have a better explanation than evolution, so let's see some results.
I've proved that facts and logic can change my mind. So bring on your facts and logic.
Have you?
I'll get to your replies to my response part 1 later.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : switched reply and response for consistency and clarity
Take what I say with an implied "all the evidence indicates that..." or "the most reasonable interpretation based on current evidence is that...". These are always implied in anything said in all walks of life.
That's all speculation based on circumstantial evidence. You couldn't know that empirically because it requires the observation and testing of subjects. Its theoretical. Could it be true? Certainly.
Think of it this way: If you have an animal with a similar genome, similar morphology, similar everything, it would be easy to speculate that one comes from the other. But that's totally subjective, unless they both share genetic mistakes. Because at some point, two animals will share more similarities than another when comparing them. That in no way proves they were related to one another.
I won't go into the "historical subject" aspect of this but will just comment that we do experiments all the time. When we explore an new fossil deposit we are experimenting to see if we make certain observations.
One observation we have continued to make is that there were no cats and dogs 70 million years ago.
Now we observe cats and dogs.
So we need a theory of how they got here. What is yours? The consensus scientific one is that something or things alive then kept changing until it's or their descendants became cats and dogs. Do you disagree?
Then the question is: was it the same thing that became cats and dogs or different things? The consensus is that is the former. With lots of good evidence for it. With the amount of evidence available calling it "speculation" is a bit of stretch for the meaning of that word.
Separately, what to you mean by "circumstantial" evidence? What kind is better?
™ Version 4.2
