|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: natural selection is wrong | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Where before the variation played the role of corresponding to a difference in likelyhood to reproduce, which was the core of Darwinist logic, now variation doesn't neccessarily correspond to differences in likelyhood to reproduce. You can't talk about selection without talking about variation. If all organisms are the same, then there's no selection - there's no choice if all the choices are the same. Once again, Syamsu presents his argument, and once again, we see it's as pointless as ever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But the choices in selection are reproduction and no reproduction Right, and the determining factor, besides luck, is how long they were able to survive. Individuals with different abilities survive for differing periods of time. Some don't survive long enough to reproduce, but others do, because they have some biological edge. But if you ignore that variation between individuals, then you're forced to consider each individual identical - an entire species of clones. If each individual is identical, then selection doesn't matter - the same genes get passed on no matter who lives or dies. This is just lunacy. Variation is a part of natural selection because variation is a part of life. You can't just ignore it - variation is real. If you try to take out variation, then you're left with a theory that ceases to model reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So I can accuse you of ignoring sameness of organisms There's no such thing, though. That's not even a word!
I am ignoring differences because I am only focused on cause and effect relationships, and this is the preferrable way to do science IMO. Ok, well, focus on this: When differential reproduction leads to natural selection, that's an effect caused by the variation among conspecific organisms.
Simply looking at what affects reproduction of the organism, and if a variant happens to influence that reproduction But you won't know if there's a preproductive influence or not unless you have something to compare reproductive success to. If I tell you that the unique qualities or an organism led to it surviving long enough to have 10 offspring, is that organism adapted to its environment, or maladapted? You can't tell me, can you? Of course you can't. You can't know without comparing its success with the success of its conspecifics. If the average member of that species has 2 offspring, that individual did very well. If the average member has 10,000 offspring, it did very poorly indeed. Comparison. Variation. You can't get rid of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Absolutely I can tell you that if an organism has 10 offspring it is adapted to it's environment You would be wrong, though. That's an organism that clearly is mal-adapted. We know this because of its severly impacted reproductive success. If an organism lags behind its conspecifics that badly, it's on it's way out. There's no way that 10 individuals are going to outcompete 10,000, and their genes count for only one-thousandth of the genes in the species' gene pool. That means that organism's genes aren't successful, because they're not increasing in frequency.
If an organism reproduces then it is adapted to it's environment of course. No, of course not. Those offspring have to themselves reproduce. It's not enough that you have children, as the saying goes. You have to have grandchildren. Seriously, Syamsu, you'd look a lot less stupid if you acquainted yourself with basic population dynamics. As it is, this topic is nonsense. "What gets me is all the mean things people say about Secular Humanism without even taking the time to read some of our basic scriptures, such as the Bill of Rights or Omni magazine." - Barbara Ehrenreich
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Then over time the fitness of both types A and B would tend to decrease, the fitness of A tending to go towards 1, and the fitness of B tending to go towards 0. I don't understand what you're talking about. Moreover I don't think you do, either.
Obviously I don't see the merit in ignoring offspring that don't get to live until reproductive age. Because they've been selected against. They're not being ignored - they're being counted against the success of the organism.
The above is just to illustrate that Darwinism is detached from reality in it's conception of fitness. Not so. Darwinism uses the only real definition of fitness - how successful an allele makes an organism in terms of passing on genes that stay in the gene pool. If all of an organisms offspring are wiped out, then they don't contribute to the gene pool. You can't be in the gene pool if you're dead. Once you're dead you're irrelevant to the species. Whether or not you were sucessful depends on how great a contribution to the gene pool you left in the form of offspring. It's kind of like bowling. You don't know your score until you've bowled the final frame.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It may be that Syamsu has an idiosyncratic definition of what a reproductive rate is. It's been my experience that Syamsu has an idiosyncratic definition of almost any term he chooses to use.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The big conceptual problem is that natural selection is a destructive process and not a constructive one. Your big conceptual problem is that natural selection isn't an indiscriminately destructive process, it's a selectively destructive one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Give me a list of beneficial mutations amongst mammals or birds, and make the mutations which could plausibly lead to a new kind of animal. There's never, in the history of life, been a "new kind of animals." All life is the same kind. We come up with hierarcheal terms that describe the degree of related-ness between organisms, but they're not separate "kinds". But the fact that we can heirarcheally classify organisms is one of the strongest arguements for their common ancestry, and in fact it's one of the reasons they developed evolution in the first place.
Anything else is BS. What's BS is this classification system you've invented, where there's "kinds of animals." Ludicrous!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
One example would be baleen, or whalebone, as opposed to the kinds of teeth which killer whales have and which whale ancestors presumably had. Another example would be wings, as opposed to arms. But neither baleen nor wings are novel structures. Baleen are modified teeth, and wings are arms with feathers. (That's why birds don't have arms.) So, there's never new "kinds" of animals, there's only modifications from old ones. Ultimately, since you get back to a single common ancestor, there's only really one "kind" of life - life.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024