Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9078 total)
125 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Phat (3 members, 122 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,028 Year: 6,140/6,534 Month: 333/650 Week: 103/278 Day: 1/24 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   natural selection is wrong
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3408 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 211 of 276 (117430)
06-22-2004 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Syamsu
06-22-2004 5:26 AM


Dear Syamsu,

Any neutral selection story is now a natural selection story, according to the paper.

But any natural selection story is not neccessarily now a neutral selection story.

Go read a dictionary if you want about the word equated

Top idea, don't you think you should have read one before you suggested it though?

Oxford English Dictionary writes:

equivalent, a. and n.
A. adj. Equal in value, power, efficacy, or import. Const. to, with, for or simply.

1. Of persons or things: Equal in power, rank, authority, efficacy, or excellence. Obs.

2. Occasional uses. a. Of songs: ?Concordant. b. Correspondent, proportioned to. Obs.

3. a. Equal in value. Now only in more restricted uses: (a) of things regarded as mutually compensating each other, or as exchangeable; (b) of things of which one serves as a measure of value for the other.

b. Of weights, measures, numerical expressions: Equal in quantitative ‘value’.

4. Having equal or corresponding import, meaning, or significance: chiefly of words and expressions.

5. a. That is virtually the same thing; identical in effect; tantamount.

b. Optics. equivalent focal length (see quots.).

c. Electr. equivalent circuit: an electric circuit consisting usually of resistance, inductance and capacitance and having characteristics equivalent to those of other electric circuits or apparatus.

Do you see yet why the fact that neutral selection is part of natural selection doesn't mean that natural selection is the same as neutral selection?

You can't deconstruct natural selection, and then rebuild to come up with the other permutations of the fundamental theory, that is no way to organize knowledge.

And that isn't how anyone suggest it is done, this is a total strawman. I have never suggested that natural selection be the starting point of all biology, I lack your arrogance. As I have pointed out before natural selection is built on a number of observations and assumptions, part of which is the sort of population dynamics that you are describing.

As 10 times before, the basis of most all biology is how the invidual organism relates to the environment in terms of fitness to reproduce. How photosynthesis functions in regards to fitness to reproduce etc. etc.

It doesn't actually matter how many times you say it if you never bother to provide any support for the assertion. I believe this is known as the Bellman's fallacy, 'What I tell you three times must be true.'

That I have to say these things 10 times, is because you don't have a clear counterargument to them.

No, you have to say the 10, or a hundred or a thousand, times because they are all you have. If you actually read my counterarguments and addressed them then we might progress, but instead you just use the same point I am countering as support for itself!!

I won't participate in another thread about it, I think it can just be limited to this one. The moderators have previously pointed out that they want to limit the discussion of this particular idea to one thread, and not have it spammed all over. I think to have a paper that argues some fault in natural selection gives some credibility to the idea that a 150 year old theory can contain faults, so it is oppurtune for me to have the discussion in this thread.

Well if you do want this thread to continue why are you basically telling me to shut up and go away? Since we are basically keeping this thread going on our own at the moment, and no-one else seems interested in discussing the topic of the OP, I was just suggesting that you might actually be able discuss the merits of your own theory, and how it differs from a slightly tarted up form of population dynamics, better in a thread specifically focussed on that.

You still seem to be clinging to the strawman argument that evolutionary theory hasn't changed since Darwin's time. As I have suggested to you before actually reading some modern texts on evolutionary theory might be a good place to start if you want to conduct a debate on it without looking like a complete fool. Crack open a book for pity's sake, its not going to kill you, mind you if you can't even stretch yourself to reading the references I provide when you ask for them I may be deluding myself to think you would actually read a relevant modern textbook. Perhaps you should start off light and just read the blurb on the backs of a few, or maybe the comments on Amazon.

The paper argues no 'fault in natural selection,' what it argues about is the correct way to look at natural selection, i.e. not as a newtonian system of forces but as a probabilistic system. It does suggest that the approach of some evolutionary biologists is flawed by teleology, but this is a widely propounded criticism of certain approaches to evolutionary theory.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Syamsu, posted 06-22-2004 5:26 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Syamsu, posted 06-22-2004 9:21 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4903 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 212 of 276 (117459)
06-22-2004 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Wounded King
06-22-2004 6:11 AM


I don't mean to continue it now, I think it's best if your wrote some sort of conclusion, like I did. And please try not to attack me in your conclusion, just say for instance that you don't understand how testing in terms of fitness to reproduce would work, in stead of accusing me of not making it clear to you.

From the dictionary, number 4 seems applicable.

I did not suggest that describing in terms of fitness to reproduce is the startingpoint of all biology, however it is the mainstay of biology yes, the description of reproductioncycle of organisms of a specie. This of course stands against popular evolutionist rhetoric that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, which is simply false. Evolution makes little sense, because of the asserted randomness of mutations. Not much sense can be made from randomness.

The paper argues a fault in natural selection, nobody before as far as I know equated neutral selection stories to natural selection, and that was faulty. 150 years of faults.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Wounded King, posted 06-22-2004 6:11 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Wounded King, posted 06-22-2004 9:58 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3408 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 213 of 276 (117464)
06-22-2004 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Syamsu
06-22-2004 9:21 AM


In conclusion, I agree with Syamsu's conclusion that

a 150 year old theory can contain faults
.

That's about as much as I can say wihtout turning to address faults in your argument which you have asked me not to do. I look forward to having this debate with you over and over again.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Syamsu, posted 06-22-2004 9:21 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
PeriferaliiFocust
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 276 (117491)
06-22-2004 11:29 AM


Still don't know what the hell is goin on here, where did the these fifteen pages come from?
Of coarse there are modifications to any original theory, i'm still confused by the title of this thread. Do you not agree that natural selection is obvious and observable? Of coarse inevitably some fit organisms will die before passing on their genes, and some weak ones will survive. Is this what the argument is? By pure probability this happens, but total the population is not effected much by these random occurances.

And yes it's quite simple that neutral selection, is only part of natural selection. Do you understand that? Do you understand that because i have a foot does not mean that i am a foot? Maybe not a good comparison, but it appears that your proposition goes along those lines of idiocy.

This seems like simple math! One is part of of Two. It is not the same thing as two. Two is effected partially by one, but most certainly is not one. Except if we're going by ratios the effect of nuetral selection would be more like one to ten, at the most. I don't really know, it would vary in different situations. Are you trying to say that nuetral selection cancels natural selection? WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? Give me a simple example, i will not accept a refrence to the paper. If you cant give me a simple example then you have no right to argue whatever it is that you are arguing.

[Any neutral selection story is now a natural selection story, according to the paper]

I don't care what the flip the paper says, i don't even think the paper supports what you are trying to say. All i want to know is what are saying about natural selection? Are you saying nuetral selection cancels it out completely? It almost seems like you are trying to discredit the theory of gravity because of the fact that if i jump i am temporarily countering the forces of gravity.


Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Wounded King, posted 06-24-2004 8:52 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 216 by Syamsu, posted 06-25-2004 6:49 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3408 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 215 of 276 (118214)
06-24-2004 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by PeriferaliiFocust
06-22-2004 11:29 AM


I don't think he's bothering anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 06-22-2004 11:29 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4903 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 216 of 276 (118599)
06-25-2004 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by PeriferaliiFocust
06-22-2004 11:29 AM


Natural selection and neutral selection are equated in meaning, they now both mean natural selection, where before they were construed as separate forces.

Theoretically most all mutations which give an advantage get wiped out, because they have to compete with a greater number of non-mutants at the start. That is the second hurdle advantageous mutations face, the first being to arise randomly from a set of possible mutations which are almost all deleterious.

What I am saying is that fundamentally we should look to organisms individually for what their fitness to reproduce is, in stead of looking comparitively between variants.

Your false assumption that it is only sometimes that a disadvantaged variant get's to reproduce, where in fact it is actually most times that the advantaged variants get's wiped out, is I think a result of your failure to look at the individual fitness to reproduce.

Of course Darwinists have known that advantageous mutations get wiped out most times, but it is not apparent by the structure of their theory. And like this, there are many more deceptions that follow from making as fundamental a comparitive view between variants, in stead of an individual view in terms of fitness to reproduce. It is simply a matter of a straightforward structure of knowledge, as explained quite adequately in the thread numerous times IMO.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 06-22-2004 11:29 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Steen, posted 06-29-2004 9:46 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 276 (120162)
06-29-2004 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Syamsu
06-25-2004 6:49 AM


quote:
Natural selection and neutral selection are equated in meaning, they now both mean natural selection, where before they were construed as separate forces.
Your claim is still false. They are NOT "equated." Rather, as you are using them, "neutral selection" is at best a SUB-GROUP of natural selection. The claim of their equality is bogous.
quote:
Theoretically most all mutations which give an advantage get wiped out, because they have to compete with a greater number of non-mutants at the start.
More nonsense. A mutation that is ADVANTAGEOUS will outcompete the non-mutated alleles and spread in the population.
quote:
That is the second hurdle advantageous mutations face, the first being to arise randomly from a set of possible mutations which are almost all deleterious.
Another false claim. "almost all" mutations are neutral, not deleterious. As for the "random" mutation, that is also a falsehood, but to your credit, it is a bit unclear what you mean, with the possibility that you mean that all mutations are equal and that which one occurs is a "random chance"? That, of course, is also not quite true, as the mutation is a result of chemical binding forces, and as such, each mutation has a rather set likelihood of occuring, with some being more likely than others.

That aside, you are also ignoring the issue of what would happen if all possible mutations actually occurs. It would create such a diverse genome in a population that the species cohesiveness would start to disintegrate. Each individual would be to unique to really fit in with others, and you end up with individuals rather than a population.

quote:
What I am saying is that fundamentally we should look to organisms individually for what their fitness to reproduce is, in stead of looking comparitively between variants.
Each individual is exposed to the forces of Natural Selection, if that is what you mean, and either reproduce or not, depending on how fit they are comparative to their neighbor. But the EVOLUTION is based on the population.
quote:
Your false assumption that it is only sometimes that a disadvantaged variant get's to reproduce, where in fact it is actually most times that the advantaged variants get's wiped out, is I think a result of your failure to look at the individual fitness to reproduce.
I still think that claim is bogous. There is still no evidence that advantageous mutations get wiped out rather than get upregulated. You are talking about the individual's advantage, which directly contradicts your claim of the advantageous individuals being wiped out. Either you are expression yourself poorly here, or your argument doesn't make sense.
quote:
Of course Darwinists..
Who are the Darwinists? Are they the biological equivalents of the Wrightists or Da Vinciists of flying?
quote:
..have known that advantageous mutations get wiped out most times,..
Rather, most mutations fade out again in a population, but advantageous ones are more likely to make it. WHy are you trying to misrepresent scientific knowledge? Is your attack on Evolution based on misrepresentation of what Evolution is? In that case, what value does your argument have, other than evidence of creationist red herrings?
quote:
.. but it is not apparent by the structure of their theory.
Rather, the structure of the Scientific Theory of Evolution is not apparent by your claims about it.
quote:
And like this, there are many more deceptions that follow from making as fundamental a comparitive view between variants, in stead of an individual view in terms of fitness to reproduce. It is simply a matter of a straightforward structure of knowledge, as explained quite adequately in the thread numerous times IMO.
So how do you explain your claim that advantageous mutations must die out most of the time. If we look solely at the individuals, then one with an advantageous mutation will survive over one without that mutation. So your claim simply doesn't make sense.

Oh, and BTW, this is also what the Scientific Theory of Evolution actually states. So really, what you argue AGAINST simply isn't evolution, so why do you bother?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Syamsu, posted 06-25-2004 6:49 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Syamsu, posted 07-03-2004 7:21 AM Steen has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4903 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 218 of 276 (121362)
07-02-2004 11:12 PM


Would the solemn preachers of methodological naturalism, and excusologists of Darwin care to comment on the apparent disparity between Darwin's story of human evolution, and Pott's story?

My comment is that the disparity shows that Natural Selection is simply wrong. It never was a scientific hypothesis, it was and is pseudoscience, a notional set of beliefs, unstructured, prejudicial, highly deceptive.

(c.Darwin, Descent of Man)
Darwin's "definition" of natural selection in Descent of Man.

"Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals."

And how natural selection mainly operates.

"Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race. (.....) and when of two adjoining tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/07/02/science.humans.reut/index.html
"Potts believes the fossil find shows that early humans lived in little groups that became separate and distinct for a while, and then came together every few thousand years or so, swapping genes and then parting ways again.

"On occasion, they became isolated for a while, possibly hundreds of generations, and so developed their own unique combination of features," Potts said in an e-mail."

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4903 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 219 of 276 (121580)
07-03-2004 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Steen
06-29-2004 9:46 PM


They are equated, natural and neutral, as proposed by the paper now mean (from memory) differential retention of variation.. or something. Your nay-saying is awfully boring. Should we now say that natural selection is a subgroup of natural selection, as you want to say that neutral selection is a subgroup of natural selection?

If you have 1000 organisms of ancestor variant A, and 1 of the advantageous mutant B with a wopping 10 percent advantage, and typically 200 organisms in the population get to reproduce, then it is uh... (spare me the math) obviously unlikely that the advantageous organism will reproduce. Have you ever thought to look at this mathematically in your useless nay saying? How can you assert so strongly without doing the math?

Maybe I should have said phenotypically expressed mutations are most all deleterious, this would have been more exact.

That's great that you see the "developmental" aspect of mutations, in stead of the randomness. However randomness is the standard theory of natural selection, and I can use the standard theory in criticizing it.

Natural Selection is not based on an individual it requires a pair of variants at at minimum to apply, the "forces" of natural selection therefore do not act on an individual, by definition. If natural selection applied to an individual then we could have a single individual and natural selection acting on it.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Steen, posted 06-29-2004 9:46 PM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Brad McFall, posted 07-03-2004 3:09 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 221 by Steen, posted 07-04-2004 6:52 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4346 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 220 of 276 (121632)
07-03-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Syamsu
07-03-2004 7:21 AM


population "thinking"
I guess this must have been what Ernst Mayr MEANT by "population thinking" but for me was just a paper on Salamander Distributions in the Carolinas etc while Ernst was not rigorous enough in his public discussion IN same regarding the philosophical approach. So for instance he chasitized me for "typological thinking" when questioned on using a unique numeric sign for individual attachment WITHIN a given population (using the divergence of some series segemented so as to incorporate gain said thought etc etc) but this line of re-questioning would not have been able to seperate (P.)Kitcher's vs Brad's ideas on mathematical biology.

There is a little (not) inflated notion of Faraday's that only "bipolarity" and not multipolarity existed (Physiologically) which I have always wondered if that an not a simple pair was responsible for the remanded "couple" you indicated prior to any force being calculated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Syamsu, posted 07-03-2004 7:21 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 276 (121900)
07-04-2004 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Syamsu
07-03-2004 7:21 AM


quote:
They are equated, natural and neutral, as proposed by the paper now mean (from memory) differential retention of variation.. or something
And as such, that paper, if you relate it accurately, is outright wrong.
quote:
Should we now say that natural selection is a subgroup of natural selection, as you want to say that neutral selection is a subgroup of natural selection?
No, we should not, as there is no Natural Selection that is not Natural Selection. There is, however, lots of Natural Selcetion that is not Neutral Selection. Your inability to comprehend this point is puzzling.
quote:
If you have 1000 organisms of ancestor variant A, and 1 of the advantageous mutant B with a wopping 10 percent advantage, and typically 200 organisms in the population get to reproduce, then it is uh... (spare me the math) obviously unlikely that the advantageous organism will reproduce. Have you ever thought to look at this mathematically in your useless nay saying? How can you assert so strongly without doing the math?
Your incomprehension of math and statistics now stand aside your incomprehension of biological science. ANY of the organisms in your example are "unlikely" to reproduce. Each one only have a one-in-five likelihood of reproduction. However, if one of the individuals in the population does carry an advantage over its neighbor, then it is MORE likely to reproduce than its neighbor is.

The accurate math is to look at each trait and evaluate how likely each is to reproduce. The "B" is 10% more likely to reproduce, thus increases its precence roughly by 10% in each generation (pending, of course, the number of offspring. In your example, each paring would have to result in 10 offspring for a steady-state population). As such, F1 would be 10 B (one mates, none do not mate), 190 A and so on. In each generation, the B individuals are 10% more likely to mate than are the A individuals.

quote:
Maybe I should have said phenotypically expressed mutations are most all deleterious, this would have been more exact.
But given that some are beneficial, and given that deleterious mutations are selected against, while beneficial mutations are selected for, it still means that positive traits will spread in the population.
quote:
That's great that you see the "developmental" aspect of mutations, in stead of the randomness. However randomness is the standard theory of natural selection, and I can use the standard theory in criticizing it.
Randomness is NOT the "standard theory" of Natural Selection. Natural selection is about environmental conditions favoring beneficial mutations with a higher likelihood of having offspring. As such, your use of randomness is either rooted in ignorance or deception.
quote:
Natural Selection is not based on an individual it requires a pair of variants at at minimum to apply, the "forces" of natural selection therefore do not act on an individual, by definition. If natural selection applied to an individual then we could have a single individual and natural selection acting on it.
Your ignorance again is showing itself. If one individual has a traith that improves its ability to mate and have viable offspring, then that individual is more likely to get a mate and to pass on that trait. And that just happens to be what Natural Selection is all about. As such, your argument simply doesn't make sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Syamsu, posted 07-03-2004 7:21 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 07-04-2004 7:08 PM Steen has replied
 Message 226 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2004 2:10 AM Steen has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 222 of 276 (121905)
07-04-2004 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Steen
07-04-2004 6:52 PM


Question for you????
Steen writes:

The accurate math is to look at each trait and evaluate how likely each is to reproduce.

Is that really correct? Or is more reasonable look at it from the other end and ask, "Why did this one reproduced better? "

Can Natural Selection be predictive?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Steen, posted 07-04-2004 6:52 PM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Steen, posted 07-04-2004 7:41 PM jar has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 276 (121912)
07-04-2004 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by jar
07-04-2004 7:08 PM


Re: Question for you????
Well, that wouldn't give you much of a mathematical predictor to go by, as far as I can see. On the other hand, I have been somewhat distanced from math since my college days

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 07-04-2004 7:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by jar, posted 07-04-2004 8:13 PM Steen has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 224 of 276 (121917)
07-04-2004 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Steen
07-04-2004 7:41 PM


Re: Question for you????
The question is "Can it be a predictor"? Can we look at a trait with enough knowledge to predict success or can we only look back and say, "This is what happened"?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Steen, posted 07-04-2004 7:41 PM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Steen, posted 07-04-2004 8:51 PM jar has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 276 (121921)
07-04-2004 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by jar
07-04-2004 8:13 PM


Re: Question for you????
Ah, I see what you are saying. Yes, the post-hoc is obvious. If we see a change in a bacteria's ability to digest sugar, it is hard to see its advantage, until we suddenly note that it digests nylon instead, and thus have no competition on its food source.

There was one interesting experiment that I noted, where bacteria were grown on nutrient-poor media:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
(see #4, especially this part): "This experiment was repeated, and the same mutations occurred, but in different orders. Also, in one replication, the processing of phosphate was improved by a duplication of the gene that produces phosphatase"

With repeated experiements, the same kinds of mutations occured, even if not in the same order.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by jar, posted 07-04-2004 8:13 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Steen, posted 07-08-2004 12:21 AM Steen has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022