natural selection is wrong

Well you are simply wrong AFAIK, natural selection, as it is now, is not based on variation with an equal likelyhood of reproducing, or with an equal rate of reproduction, but is constricted to variation which has a difference in probability to reproduce, a difference in rate of reproduction. I could show you loads of formulations of natural selection that say this, in Darwin it is expressed as one having an advantage over another. That the authors include variation with equal likelyhood to reproduce in natural selection, where before they were described separately from natural selection in neutral selection or genetic drift or something, is a fundamental shift in theory. Now we can have any story of neutral selection as an example of natural selection.But let's approach this another way, all the simplified examples of natural selection concerning white moths, black moths and black trees etc. are false, when you say that simplified examples with lightningstrikes are false also. Of course the reason that the white/black moths example is false, as well as a solely neutral example is false, is because it is prejudicial. To include one would amd not the other, would tend to lead to think that the other is excluded from natural selection. Consequently most all teaching of natural selection is false, because most all teaching is constricted to examples of one variant having an advantage over another.You are not pointing out exactly where my supposed error in reasoning is.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think lifting the exclusion of events like lightningstrikes from natural selection more represents a simplification of the structure of natural selection theory, rather then an increase in complexity.It is also telling that this comes from seeking consistency with a principle that is much older then natural selection theory. It would be different if there was some new theory that resulted in some change in natural selection theory, like for instance some new theory about the gradual disintegration of biological systems that don't evolve.Aren't actually most all events that influence survival/reproduction of an organism like lightningstrikes, pretty much equally probable to occur to one variant as the other? It would seem so, which would certainly make differential likelyhood to reproduce of special note to students, because it doesn't occur very much in natural selection.I think fitness is predicted in advance just like the flip of a coin is predicted in advance, by observing the sides to be equal, and like observations. Variations are not as simple as a coin, but you can make broad guesses about differential proneness to reproduce in advance.You evidently still use selection as meaning different likelyhood to reproduce, when you say that it is reasonable to assume that the variation is being subjected to selection etc. All variation is subject to selection in the new formulation, and I would add that it can only follow that the restriction of natural selection to apply on allelles that don't vary will also be lifted.Next we might see a paper that argues;
Case1: organism A with good eyesight get's hit by lightning,
organism B with bad eyesight doesn't get hit by lightning.
Case2: organism A with good eyesight get's hit by lightning,
organism B which also has good eyesight doesn't get hit by lightning.Can we really exclude case 2 from natural selection? ....etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Saying that it's not meaningful seems such a subjective argument. As discussed over a year ago, most biology completely ignores any and all variation when describing typical lifehistory of a specie, or population. For example: 30 percent of some bird get killed on the journey to the south, the survivors have a higher chance of reproduction because they have decreased competition from their own sort. It seems meaningful science so you must be talking about something else when you say it's not meaningful selection. You can't have meaningful selection without reproduction, or survival, or retention or like principles. The selection is between reproduction and no reproduction, seems meaningful enough to me.I was talking about the observation of equal sides leading to the predictions about coin tosses, not the observation of many tosses of coins leading to predictions about coin tosses.I don't understand why you still refer to lightningstrikes as a non-selective pressure, in the context of discussing the new formulation of natural selection. I am thinking that things like eating and birds migrating south being hit by storms, mostly also fall into the category of lightningstrikes.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You can have the word selection refer to what you want, but it would just be a subset of a more general theory. As shown in the post before, the observations are almost exactly the same, the observations should therefore all fall within the scope of a more general theory.John Wilkins on talk.origins used the word sampling in stead of selection, to refer to describing the relationship of the organism to the environment in terms of reproduction without variation.Selection would then become some subset of sampling theory. Mutations, recombinations occur and they are sampled by the environment in regards to their fitness for reproduction. A typical natural selection sceario is then when the environment changes, variant A get's to be resampled in respect to the new environmental factor of increased competition of variant B, which results in exticntion of A. Individual variant B's also get resampled and their reproductionrate is momentarily increased until the population reaches capacity.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As far as I know, "adaptation" is a vague notional term in Darwinism, it is not measurable. You can't say for instance this organism has an adaptation of 232, or an adaptation of 70 percent. It is therefore useless to argue about it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I only mentioned John Wilkins name as a sort of proper tribute to him, not as some kind of support in argument. From memory he talked about how Gould used the term selection in regards to species, without referring to variant species. The wordusage is my own responsibility by my acceptance of it, so you can refer to me. Besides, it's just a word, what word do you suggest otherwise?Selection as a subset of sampling would be limited to encroachment. It would mean the one variant causing the other variant not to reproduce, and not mean one reproducing more then the other. It would be based on an identifiable chain of cause and effect, and not based on unidentifiable comparisons. Comparisons don't actually occur in nature. I think it's not really philosphically valid to say that a comparison causes any change in nature.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I was making an argument about adaptation, but then I deleted it because I got stranded in the ambiguity of the term.What caused the gravelcolor of the guppy to be an adaptation was the introduction of predators. What caused the spread of gravelguppy's was it's fitness to reproduce.Note again that the reproductionrate of gravelguppy's will go back to 1, just the same as it was with colourguppies before predators were introduced.Starting from the introduction of predators, as natural selection takes place, the reproductiverate of gravelguppies falls to 1, and that of colourful falls to 0 (or might climb to 1 also if some balance is possible).It might also be the case that when predators are introduced both fall to zero. And then you would want to make yet another theory to deal with that scenario, eventhough everybody can see it is one and exact same fundamental principle being applied, sampling for reproduction or no reproduction.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You have no point, it would be improper for me to claim credit for having coined the word by not mentioning John Wilkins use of it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Can you and Mammuthus please remove your rubbish from the thread, and excuse yourselves to leave?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You compared the women in your imagination. When you consider your imagination part of nature, then I guess you could say that comparisons occur in nature.There is no comparison on rate of reproduction between variants in nature, these comparisons also only happen in the minds of Darwinists. This is why in modelling natural selection on a computer no comparison on reproductive rate is coded in getting the world of digital organisms to function.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As before all Darwinists, both adaptionists and their opposers, use a teleological conception of natural selection."The idea is that if natural selection were to act on its own, it would achieve optima. Evolution does not always produce optima, however, because natural selection is opposed by constraints.But this is an illegitimately teleological way of conceptualizing the action of natural selection, that is, by specifying a result, and a value-laden one at that. (Of course, the critics of adaptationism would say that their opponents bear the blame for this. Still, they seek to mitigate the teleology of their opponents by putting brakes on it. This is not the right move: they should reject the teleological conception right from the start.)"regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I have searched for it some time ago, but couldn't find it. Once again it is irrellevant. If you have some objection to the word sampling for describing the relationship of the organism to the environment in terms of reproduction, then say what your objection is, and suggest another word maybe.I have no idea why you seek to pursue such a completely meaningless point of wordusage with such snide insinuations as if I did a terrible thing.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

My definitions are all derived from the principle of sampling, derived from viewing the relationship of an organism to the environment in terms of reproduction. It is a systematic approach starting from that point. You could say I am locked into a web of those definitions yes and am not inclined to look at things differently. Most biology consists of describing lifehistory of individuals without reference to variation, it is the mainstay of regular biology also.Darwinists are stuck in reasoning with archaic terms such as struggle for existence / life. It is not as straightforward as you make it out to be. I don't think the paper I referenced has any chance of changing opinions of Darwinists, regardless if it's true or not, because the debate over it will inevitably sink into absurd exegesis of the works of Darwin and Fischer etc., rather then that people would actually look at nature. My definitions are uniformly understandable, it would be uniformly expressed, while Darwinist definitions are ambigious. Your story is different from Peter, and Peter's story different from Wounded King and so on. Your view on comparisons occuring in nature is wholy your own as far as I know, it is not in Darwinist literature as far as I've seen. Yet you make it out as though I am the one proposing this weird theory, where you are actually positing something quite obscure. An idea of comparisons occurring in nature, which idea tends to relate natural selection to choice. If you want to introduce something like comparison as an observable phenomenon in nature, rather then something in the minds of observers, then you have to abstract it to an exact concept that is generally applicable. For instance you have to ask yourself questions like are the sides of a coin also compared in a coinflip? Is comparison part of outcome realisation of chances? etc. What are comparisons in terms of Newtonian mechanics, or quantum mechanics? Do comparisons also occur between organisms which are the same, or just with organisms which vary?As said before interesting things keep coming along, which is why I am still in this debate. Now this new paper comes along about lightningstrikes being included as part of natural selection. As shown before, when variation that doesn't correspond to difference in likelyhood to reproduce is included in natural selection, as the paper argues, then this makes the reason to include variation seem pointless. Any neutral selection story is now a natural selection story.I think it still might be possible that extreme moderation, where every point is arbitrated by the moderator in terms of scientific rigour might result in shifting the advantage to my view of things. If for instance someone says that "some organisms survive to reproduce" then that would be rejected IMO on strict standards of meaning, and the debator would have to reformulate.1- Some organisms survive to reproduce
2- Some organisms survive to reproduce, other organisms survive to not reproduce
3- Some organisms survive to reproduce, other organisms don't survive to not reproduce
4- Some organisms survive to reproduce, other organisms survive to have a good time.
5- Some organisms reproduce other's don't reproduce.
6- Some organisms survive other's don't surviveOnly 5 and 6 are valid, because on equal standards if 1 is held to be valid, then 2,3 and 4, which are obviously nonsensical / teleological, should also be held to be valid.Moderating this way would force Darwinists to seek a systematic approach rather then the notional approach they now have.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Selection does not describe the relationship of the organism to the environment in terms of reproduction. It describes relative reproductive proneness, or whatever, between variants. The two are not the same, unless you want to throw any measure of precision out the window in science, they are demonstrably not the same.Are you now saying that you wish that viewing an individual organism in terms of the relationship to it's environment should be called selection? Again, the causes of your anger is a total mystery to me.As far as I can tell you are simply stonewalling the paper to the point that it says all current Darwinism is teleological. I don't have to go outside the paper and look for teleology in Darwinist literature, because there is no Darwinist literature that includes events which are equally likely to occur to one variant as another, such as lightningstrikes, in natural selection. Since the teleology follows from not indluding those events, all Darwinism is teleological, even that part of Darwinism which sought to constrain the teleology of natural selection, by referring to forces outside of natural selection.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I was under the impression that you said the paper didn't suggest that all modern Darwinism was teleological, so the argument was stuck there.The teleology is that natural selection is in principle relied on to produce the best of all possible worlds, but that other things inhibit this goal of selection, like random fixatation etc.This goal is based on prejudicially constricting observations to the potential of longterm manipulative effects on populationshare of a variant having a reproductive advantage, as some kind of force. If it is at all a force then random fixatation is equally a part of this force.And everyone can see that regardless of any more fundamental arguments about teleology being true or not, that Darwinists use a teleological kind of language. "the best of all possible worlds" etc. It is not proper that you pretend nothing is going on in regards to teleology, you have to at the very least recognize this teleological kind of language as special to natural selection, distinct from language of fundamental theories in all other sciences. Other fundamental science theories do not have this apparent teleology, or have papers written about them alleging actual teleology.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu