Destroying Darwinism

I'd say that the theory of evolution can't be applied to a totally clonal population, except in as much as extinction forms a part of it.And even then only certain, largely indiscriminate, forms of extinction would be relevant.

I would say that depends...if the population must (by some incomprehensible way)always remain clonal and never vary (how this would be constrained I do not see), then you would have no evolution...this is a scenario that is not supported by any data I am aware of... But a period of stasis in not hard to imagine though given polymerase replication errors (including in asexually reproducing organisms) it is likely to be a brief stasis.It seems like Symansu is a fan of a warped view of punctuated equilibrium....but as you pointed out earlier...this thread is like a time warp cheers,
M

Theory of evolution ... well no.But natural selection can.This seems to be a problem for Sy. ... natural selection only
drives evolution if::1) There is heritable variation
AND
2) Some variation or other causes a differential reproduction rate.

For the 4792839823'th time, when you say that selection without variation is pointless, then well, most of biology is pointless. In most biology variation plays no role, it is ignored. You don't read much about variants of tigers, you just read about the tiger and it's reproductioncycle. Oh you didn't mean to say it was pointless? But you did Peter, you did, you just disqualified the core of biology without thinking.....It's just a basic rule in the organization of knowledge folks, you can't do it your way, and not make a mess of it. Natural Selection doesn't drive anything, comparisons don't drive anything, it is ridiculous to talk that way about a comparison. What drives things is the relationship of the environment to the organism in terms of reproduction.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Selection without variation is not pointless, it is the core of biology. You don't read much about variants of tigers, you just read about the tiger. Selection without variation is not about clone populations, it is about having the flexibility to describe each and every variant individually as neccessary.Differences don't drive anything, that is just a ridiculous way of talking about differences.You can't do it your way without making a mess of the organization of knowledge.Once again, what selfrespecting creationist would accept the Darwinian gibberish of heritability of zero for traits that are not varying in a population? I don't understand why creationists don't use this obvious weakness of Darwinism in debate.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Thinking of natural selection is possible without referring
to the natural variation evident within populations.It is pointless to do so, because without variation the effect
of the selection is, well, nothing much.What the rest of biology studies is the commonality (generic
aspects of species or animals or plants).Evolution is the study of biological diversity.You cannot study biological diversity if there isn't any diversity
(or variation) ... perhaps you do not feel that elephants and
frogs are diverse/vary from one another.ToE attempts to explain how this diversity arose in the first
place, and has proposed a mechanism that can facilitate this
even if the original population on earth was a single type
of single-celled organism.In order for ToE to BE an explanation of bio-diversity there
needs to be some diversity to work with ... we get this via
mutations (which happen), and once sexual reproduction
emerged we get mixing-up of gene pools too.To claim that my comments mean that biology is pointless is
'clutching at straws'.

Selection is not the core of biology, nor has it ever
been.Biology is the study of living things ... and like most areas
of study it is necesarily generic in most regards.We discuss 'the tiger' as though all tigers are identicle,
not because they are, but because we wish to understand the
core of what it is to be a tiger.You are desparate to undermine evolutionary ideas ... and yet
nothing you say makes any sense in this regard. You seem to be
trying to re-define nature so that what has been seen cannot
be called evolution.

"ToE attempts to explain how this diversity arose in the first
place" ........ "In order for ToE to BE an explanation of bio-diversity there needs to be some diversity"You can't explain diversity with diversity, that is circular reasoning.....Let's just say that Natural Selection is conceptually a great big mess, one interpretation of it not being more correct then another.
The arguments of the lot of you, don't amount to much of anything substantive. It is still very vague.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Not really Syamsu. Explaining the phenotypic diversity we see in the many species of organism we see in our world by looking at the way their genetic material diversifies and propagates is not circular reasoning.It is true that one type of diversity is being used to explain another type of diversity, but as we are well aware of a number of origins for genetic diversity in the form of mutations there is no circular argument.It is not true, and in fact frankly dishonest, to suggest that we are using the diversity of life as an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.TTFN,Wounded

It's strange that you would accuse me of dishonesty for my position on a point that's very arguable. You are not explaining any diversity with Natural Selection since you simply assume existence of diversity in requiring variation for the theory, sorry, that's just the way words work. There was an organism with proto-synthesis in the population and there were organisms which didn't have that trait, and then the different organisms had different rates of reproduction. This does not explain anything about the origin of diversity. Again, mutation/recombination is the origin, and after that it's just reproduction or no reproduction.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

All of which is completewly irreleveant to the point I was making, which was about how yyou were misrepresenting what Peter had said.I don't see how can think it is arguable that what he said presented circular reasoning, except in as much as you can put forward a weak and highly specious argument, as indeed you just did.How on earth do you reach the conclusion that we simply 'assume' the existence of variation. We don't, the variation is there.Your photosynthesis trait example says nothing to the origin of diversity because it is a stupid hypothetical scenario that you put together and whose framework you keep changing! I have already pointed out to you how your model could produce two stable reproductively isolated populations one of photosynthetic and one of non photosynthetic bacteria. No one is saying that natural selection is the cause of mutations.[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 07-01-2003]

quote:

---

Again, mutation/recombination is the origin, and after that it's just reproduction or no reproduction.

---

If this were the case you would expect every mutation to have an equal chance of being represented in a population yet this is clearly not the case...some mutations spread very quickly and become fixed...sometimes a few variants are common...why if selection is irrelevant?Also, do you assume every time there is a mutation in someones DNA that they will fail to reproduce? with your logic we should be clonal or do you believe that mutations are the cause of reproduction? Why would a mutation cause a difference in the rate of reproduction in your scenario?[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 07-01-2003]

I am, again, beginning to believe that you do not wish
to be swayed from your position ... so you mis-intepret
posts.Maybe if we start from scratch....1) There is a vast diversity in biological organisms on earth today.
2) There must be some reason for this diversity.3) Differences between organism can be directly attributed to their
DNA sequence and 'amount' differences.4) During cell division copy errors can be introduced into DNA
sequences. This can include deletion/insertion of bases, transposition, translocation, breaking of chromosomes, copying
of chromosomes, and many more.5) When the organism asexually reproduces, or the copy error is
in gamete production, then 'offspring' will carry genetic
differences to their 'parent(s)'.6) Provided the copy error is viable, then logically the change
caused can be either beneficial, nuetral, or detrimental with
respect to one or a group of prevailing environmental conditions.7) Not all members of a generation will suffer the same copy
errors therefore (logically) some may have beneficial, some
neutral, some detrimental, and some NO copy errors.8) A beneficial change may allow an individual to live and reproduce
longer than an individual with no change, neutral, or detrimental
changes.9) A detrimental change may allow an individual to live and reproduce
shorter than an individual with no change, neutral, or beneficial
changes.10) The changes can be passed on to offspring.11) (8) & (9) logically imply that after a number of generations
the frequency of the beneficial change will be greater than the
frequency of the detrimental change.

because you have lied and misrepresented others posts constantly.One excellant example is your statements concerning Mendell and my earlier statements concerning the difference between genetic inheritance and phenotypic expression. This is quite important because it provides the difference between your erroneous statements concerning assumed genetic variability and observed genetic variability, as was demonstrated in some of the data that I and others have provided for you, all of which is real observed data and not arguements from authority as you so constantly, and erroneously, claim. Here are some observed facts:
1) Mutations move through a population in varying frequencies.
2) Mutations can have a variety of effects w.r.t. phenotypic expression, they can change a protein, the protein function, or the level of a protein.
3) There can be a multitude of different mutations for a single gene, providing multiple alleles. The frequency of these alleles can reach and maintain a stable level over large periods of time.
4) These genetic variations exists regardless of selective pressures.Now, on to theory which you erroneously and arrogantly claim to understand better than others on this board.Selection is based on interactions between an individual and it's total environment. This includes weather, predators, prey (ie food), and any other external factor(s). It is a filter which allows genetic material to pass through. It can select for the length survival of the organism as well as the organisms reproductive success. BOTH factors are important. Where the already present variation comes to play is in the unique interactions between the phenotypic expression of a unique genetic packette and the environment where different combinations of genes have a differential degree of survivability and a differential degree of reproductive success. This was the statistical theoretical example which I provided for you which is based on real and observed population genetics and dynamics and which you, by your own admission, did not understand.Now Syamsu, please tell me how you can understand natural selection better thant eh rest of us if you do not understand even the most basic of examples?------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

As per the "The Nature of Mutations" topic, it seems that topics that go too many pages are subject to technical problems.Before this topic gets closed, would Syamsu care to try to CONCISELY summarize what his objections to Darwinism are?Then, if needed, we can proceed on to "Destroying Darwinism II".(Ad)minnemooseus - operating in the semi-admin mode