natural selection is wrong

Did I just go through a time warp to last year?Once again for Syamsu, what you want to study is population dynamics while evolution is concerned with population genetics.

I think it might be argued that lightningstrikes have the same probabililty of affecting reproductive rate of organisms corresponding to their sameness. So then it would be comparitive after all, but comparing in terms of how much they are the same.So I can accuse you of ignoring sameness of organisms, much as you accuse me of ignoring differences between organisms, and organisms in a population are a lot more the same then they are different.But I think this is all besides the point. I am ignoring differences because I am only focused on cause and effect relationships, and this is the preferrable way to do science IMO. Simply looking at what affects reproduction of the organism, and if a variant happens to influence that reproduction, directly or indirectly, then I would notice variation in that respect, as an environmental selective factor on the organism described. As a basic formulation of selection, this is unbeatable by the standards in science, because of it's general applicability, the uniformity of it's application, and the focus on physical relationships.When somebody in this thread says that the mechanism of natural selection causes diversity, then that is complete nonsense if we understand comparison of reproductive success to cause anything whatsoever. Comparisons cause nothing, and standard natural selection is a comparison. Mutations or recombinations of the heriditary material cause an organism to be different then it's ancestor. Once we admit that this is the cause of change, the only thing left is to describe if the mutant or recombination spreads / reproduces, and then you have a complete description of evolution already.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well now I have a paper to more or less back up my position, why don't you address the paper?I'm not absolutely clear about what the paper says, but it seems to say that growth rate is the fundament of the theory of selection, which if I remember correctly, you only saw as proper to population dynamics and not selection."Anthony Edwards reports that this growth-rate theorem was presented by C.C. Li as a simplified version of Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection.It is certainly simplified in that it does not take on board such complications as sexual reproduction, dominance, linkage, ecological change, etc., while Fisher’s theorem and its successors contain parameters that sum up the effect of such factors.Consequently, Li’s theorem cannot be applied to phenotypically defined sub-populations except under special circumstances, only to populations of genes.Despite this limitation, Li’s theorem highlights the essential nature of selection. What it says, in effect, is that when the different sub-types within a population grow at different rates, the sub-types that grow faster increase their representation in the whole. Moreover, the speed with which this takes place is proportionate to the variance in the whole. These are fundamental facts about any kind of selection; in effect, Li’s theorem defines selection as change in a population divided by growth rates. This definition, and the mathematical truth on which it rests, is substrate neutral.Li’s theorem is an abstract expression of the effects of differential selection. Taking growth rate as a surrogate for fitness, it is possible to appreciate the intention of Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem: a population increases in fitness proportionate to the genetic variance in fitness among sub-populations. Note that this does not tell us much about vernacular fitness, that is, about the causes of growth in a sub-population, or about progress.In fact, the theorem tells us nothing about the improvement of any given type. The pre-existent type that grows fastest comes in time to dominate the population. This type does not get any better in itself; it just contributes more to the mean growth rate of the population."regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 05-25-2004 05:37 AM

There's no such thing, though. That's not even a word! Ok, well, focus on this: When differential reproduction leads to natural selection, that's an effect caused by the variation among conspecific organisms. 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.

Absolutely I can tell you that if an organism has 10 offspring it is adapted to it's environment, no matter if there are organisms in the same envrironment that reproduce 10.000 times. If this organism that produces 10.000 would in time encroach on the one that reproduces 10 times then the one reproducing 10 times would not be adapted anymore. If an organism reproduces then it is adapted to it's environment of course.But it seems to me the mean reproductive rate always tends to go towards 1 or 0. That is even organisms getting hit by lightning get to be reproduced in a way, because sometime later we can once again see a similar organism being hit by lightning. It is all repeated time after time.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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. 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

In a typical natural selection scenario of an allele sweeping to fixation, some environment change occurs, and then the fitness of one type A is dramatically increased, and the fitness of type B is decreased. 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. It is a nonsense to say that the individuals in the population are becoming more fit. There is an initial jump in fitness of individuals belonging to type A, and then a general decrease in fitness of individuals of that type, as they increasingly compete with other type A individuals.Obviously I don't see the merit in ignoring offspring that don't get to live until reproductive age. They are organisms and need to be taking into acount of course in calculating a mean average reproduction rate.The above is just to illustrate that Darwinism is detached from reality in it's conception of fitness.If you are so tired of my supposed ignorance on the matter, then why don't you address the paper I referenced in stead?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't understand what you're talking about. Moreover I don't think you do, either. Because they've been selected against. They're not being ignored - they're being counted against the success of the organism. 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.

I do understand what I'm talking about. Reproduction will tend to fill up an environment to capacity. When it arrives at capacity the mean average reproductive rate cannot be larger then 1, obviously, because there aren't any resources anymore in the environment to go over 1.I just don't believe that you don't have the realization that you said some very questionable things. You said that an organism that reproduces is not adapted to it's environment. Such very obviously questionable assumptions should lead to further investigation.Apart from my amateur criticism of selection, I don't understand why you don't concern yourself with more credible professional criticism that natural selection is teleological, and that it violates some principle of physics, as in the paper I referenced.Of course the only way for an amateur to get a grasp of the paper is to have a clear conception of the relationship of the organism to the environment in terms of reproduction. Without such an anchorpoint I'm sure it would be impossible for an amateur to grasp what it is saying, regardless of the fact that the paper doesn't actually explicitly support such a simplified formulation of selection.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You know, it's odd... I was at a party last Friday, and I was interested in two girls, both of whom were interested in me as well. I went with the prettier one.My choices were greater than reproduction or no reproduction, because within the option of reproduction, there was the choice of reproduction with girl A, or reproduction with girl B.Are you saying that I'm the first person this has ever happened to? (I hope so, because that would make me super-stud of the planet.)

---

"He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low. But the Gospels actually taught this: Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected."
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Ummm...obviously you don't know what you're talking about. Organisms die too, you know. You seem to be ignoring death rate here...or am I reading this wrong? There's no reason to assume that all organisms, upon reaching K, will have to decrease their reproductive output to only one individual (actually, only leaving one offspring to the next generation is not good enough to even replace yourself).

Dear Syamsu,Please show how this paper allows, or is favourable to, a useful formulation of a theory of natural selection/ evolution which disregards variation. As you yourself mentioned the author states that "It follows that natural selection is not just a part of evolution: heritable variation leading to differential retention is all that evolution amounts to in the biological domain.".How can such a view possibly be derived from the same information which leads you to such a diametrically opposed conclusion? Please lead us through your thinking as clearly as you can.Your comments on the discussion of teleology is totally misplaced. This discussion is focussed on an adaptationist interpretation of NS/evolution. Can you demonstrate a common teological assumption underlying the fundamental concepts of natural selection?The disparity between Newton laws of motion and the resolution of forces acting in Natural Selection doesn't show that evolution breaks any laws of physics. Simply that the factors acting in evolution are not equatable to the forces of classical Newtonian physics.TTFN,WK

It may be that Syamsu has an idiosyncratic definition of what a reproductive rate is. If a population is really at carrying capacity with a hard population ceiling then it is true that the total population should not be able to increase appreciably over time. This does not, of course as you point out, mean that reproduction only has to occur at replacement levels. All it means is that there will be more death associated with competition for resources.TTFN,WK

It's been my experience that Syamsu has an idiosyncratic definition of almost any term he chooses to use.

Syamsu,[Once more into the breach]Can we at least agree that natural selection was, & is, primarily formulated to explain adaptation?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-27-2004 09:31 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't