Elitism and Nazism

I'd be very surprised. the only, arguably, mainstream evolutionist you have presented as agreeing with you is SJ Gould. I would be interested if you could find many of his essays which agree with your viewpoint.No one is arguing that selective pressures do not act on individual members of a population, the point is that informative data about the process of Natural Selection and evolution within that population cannot be gained by looking at one individual alone. The data are only informative when you look at the population as a whole, which is where the comparison comes in.

quote:

---

So as before, similar arguments as I make have been made by mainstream evolutionists. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an essay that said the same thing as I do about selection having to be defined on an individual basis in stead of a comparitive basis, since several evolutionists on this forum have said to me that fundamentally selection should in fact be understood on an individual basis.

---

Any definition of natural selection that doesn't include variation is meaningless. Many organisms, you'll find, do not reproduce without others of their species, and so the ability you claim to discern anything about the individual organism outside of the context of a population is nonexistent. Populations are composed of variants statistically distributed around a mean, so the notion of a single organism standing for anything except convenient scientific shorthand is impossible to support.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

I think I can say that a white moth fits a white tree for reproduction, without comparing to variants. I don't think I need the comparison.You would say that the haemoglobine molecule is around an average mean in the population? I don't think you quite understand that differences in genes are discrete and not generic. The generic differences seem to be a phenotypical function of controlling genes.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

I think I can say that a white moth fits a white tree for reproduction, without comparing to variants. I don't think I need the comparison.

---

Oh, but you do need the comparison. Testing the effects of natural selection would require you to count the moths in a population at various times and know what percentage were white, what percentage black, and so on. The changes in these percentages would determine the outcome of your selection analysis. You probably don't care if they are the same moths at each census, just whether moths sharing certain characteristics seem to be better-represented numerically in subsequent populations.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

quote:

---

Oh, but you do need the comparison. Testing the effects of natural selection would require you to count the moths in a population at various times and know what percentage were white, what percentage black, and so on. The changes in these percentages would determine the outcome of your selection analysis. You probably don't care if they are the same moths at each census, just whether moths sharing certain characteristics seem to be better-represented numerically in subsequent populations.

---

How many times has Syamsu been bashed over the head with the fact of competition among varying organisms?He doesn't get it. He ignores it whenever anyone points out that there are limited resources in any ecosystem, predators that will eat the slowest and most obvious prey, and myriad other factors that produce the "differential" success of variants. I can't explain his insistence on removing this vital aspect of fitness, but it's a fact, and nothing seems to change it.

Again, I think I can determine if or not the white wingcolor of the white moth contributes to reproduction of said moth by observing it, without comparing with other moths. That is the meaningful information.Gee Zephyr do you really think I hadn't thought about competition? Have you ever thought about the absence of competition between variants? That variants by their difference are more likely to use different sort of resources then samestructured organism, and therefore compete less. Such as nylon eating bacteria and their ancestors.1. You can't tell me what the differential reproductive success of nylon / non nylon eating bacteria is.
2. If you could tell me then that number would have no scientific meaning. It is 1:10 so what, it's 10:100000 so what, no meaning there
3. You would seem to ignore the simple observation that eating nylon contributes to reproduction. Again, the comparison has no fundamental scientific value.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't think that is true, I think most people understand by now. I think you are the only one who still doesn't understand. The comparison leads to the judgemental words, and in turn the judgemental words are conducive to social darwinism.I don't have to convince anyone here that the usage of words such as goodness, or selfish in a science theory are inherently questionable by the ideal of of neutrality in science. Everyone here shares this standard already.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Actually people are arguing that Natural Selection doesn't act on an individual, but only acts comparitively. If they weren't arguing that, then the question how Natural Selection should be defined would soon be settled by the rules in organizing knowledge in favour of the non-comparitive approach.Gould doesn't agree with my viewpoint. Like I said, he still supports the comparitive approach eventhough he notes the peculiarity of it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

I think I can determine if or not the white wingcolor of the white moth contributes to reproduction of said moth by observing it, without comparing with other moths. That is the meaningful information.

---

I'm sure you think you can determine that, and you think wrong. You can only determine if the color of the moth contributed to its reproductive success if you have studied a population in which some variants did not share the trait. By observing one organism, you can draw no conclusions about natural selection. That is not meaningful information of any kind.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

Creationist Paley in his main work referenced another creationist who noted that each and every attribute of an organism contributes either to survival, or to reproduction in some way, without referring to Natural Selection at all. I have no clue what you're talking about saying it is impossible...regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Do "confidence intervals" make you feel insecure? Does the "standard deviation" make you want to have inappropriate contact with your neighbors sheep? Does calculation of the "mean" make you aggressive and surly? Does a "lek" make you want to join the Polish solidaritiy movement (though you would be a bit late).

I think it is perfectly correct to say that the structure of the haemoglobin molecule in the population varies, although it is a discontinuous rather than a continuous variation. As it is discontinuous ther is no average mean but there is an average mode and there might be a median, I'm not quite sure offhand how many isoforms of haemoglobin there are, but I know that it is more than one and therefore shows variation.You admit that genetic difference exist, in what way are these differences not variation?

So in fact you show no mainstream evolutionist who agrees with you. The actual selective pressures act on both the individual and the population but looking at the individual will not show you any trend. I personally don't care if you want to say that Natural selection, as in the force of a particular selective pressure, acts on the individual, but doing so gives you absolutely no explanatory ability, all you can say is that one specific creature died due to one specific selective pressure, this will not allow you to determine anything about the dynamics or genetics of the population as a whole. The only way to look at them as a whole is to study either the whole of, or a large sample of, the population it is this broad focus which brings the comparison in, in the same way that looking at a large sample of stars shows comparative differences in a variety of factors.

quote:

---

Creationist Paley in his main work referenced another creationist

---

I certainly would have no reason to question the soundness of this citation...

quote:

---

who noted that each and every attribute of an organism contributes either to survival, or to reproduction in some way, without referring to Natural Selection at all.

---

Like we've said before, the attributes that contribute to the survival of the organisms which possess them in a population can only be determined after analyzing the entire population at different times for the observed effects of the process of Natural Selection.

quote:

---

I have no clue what you're talking about saying it is impossible...

---

You've already long since convinced me of this, Sy.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

The blind eyes of a cave fish contribute 'either to survival, or to reproduction' in what way exactly?