Destroying Darwinism

The unique comes from mutations generally not being repeatable, or that being a very low chance. The specific function is to say that the DNA is organized, and it isn't a generic substance changing gradually.My arguments still haven't changed from a few posts ago.you say: carryingcapacity, competitive relationship between variants
I say: preservation or extinction, and symbiotic and all kinds of other relationships between variants existyou say: it's evolutionary meaningful to include variants
I say: differential reproductive success is solely about reproduction/extinction, not mutation or recombinationyou say: variation exists therefore it has to be included
I say: I exist, include me in the definition why don't youyou say: it's ridiculous not to look at the organisms that don't have the trait in the population
I say: what is not relevant, not functional in the theory should be ignored.Again, your view of Nature oddly falls in between variants, where my view on Nature is focused on the relationship of an organism to it's envrionment in terms of reproduction/preservation. You have no valid justification for including variation, and also the historical context shows that to include variation has been damaging to science in view of denying Mendellism, and continues to be damaging in making it difficult to talk sensibly about preservation of species (heritability of zero for traits that are inherited, there being no selection against endangered species, fitness being a relative measure of variation leads to fitness being useless to describe if an organism still fits it's environment when some of it's environment is destroyed etc.).I think that about sums it up, I fail to see how you could be confident of your position.So what do creationists think about all of this? What do creationists think about the merits of defining heritability as zero when a trait is not varying, eventhough the traits are inherited? Are selectioncriteria for a job still selectioncriteria when there is only one candidate? Does there have to be variation for selection to occur? Your comments are most welcome.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Again, the other variants are only irrellevant in so far as that they are not relevant to the preservation of the particular mutant under investigation. Elephants are irrellevant when describing frogs.You see now you come with the added requirement for the environment of variants to be the same. But your meaning of environment is vague, you have to show the function of them being in the same environment. They have to be in the same environment, because NS only describes in so far as the variants share resources, like that.Really, whenever you talk about the genetics of human beings you will include me? I don't think so, you will just ignore my genetic variation. Most all the time every and all variation is ignored in a population, because it's simply not of interest most times.It's still organized, like a glass of water is not organized, because you can put the water that's at the top at the bottom, and then, unlike DNA, the glass of water will still have the same properties as it did before. So you can change the organization at 2 different points, leading to approximately the same effects, it's still organized, specific.I would say that when AA increases in an environment it's very much more fit in that environment. That you say this doesn't tell you anything about it's fitness just means your concept of fitness has become useless. It means you have detached fitness from reproduction. Your example precisely illustrates what's wrong with the standard definition IMO. The selective factor of preying birds migh have decreased, or something like that. You still have to show how this selective factor would be particular to AA in individual selection though.
If the population went down, if it became an endangered population, then they would not become less fit in your definition of fitness. They could become extinct and fitness would have nothing to do with it, you wouldn't see it from your perspective of fitness. And your perspective is what permeates through all of biology. So in that way I meant that there is no selection against endangered species by your definitions.Sure there can be technical terms which have a meaning that's counter to common sense, but the most influential Darwinist literature is generally not very technical but more prosaic, which leads to suspect that the awkard definitions are based on a technical fault glossed over in writing prosa, which fault then became more pronounced when knowledge got built onto the fault.You don't know what you're talking about, because there doesn't exist any justification for including variaton in Darwinist literature. You're just making it up as you go along. That would be easy wouldn't it, just refer me to the literature for a justification, and you're done. I think I have answered all your questions and not avoided any. Besides, you should be arguing a justification for variation, you should be doing all the arguing, but you seem to just refer to authority a lot.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

When I say that heritability for a trait is zero, eventhough it is inherited, I'm using the Darwinist definition for heritability first (which is zero when the variation is zero), and the oxford definition for inheriting second.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Fitness in Darwinism is *always* relative (relative to another variation), as I've been assured by a knowledgeable evolutionist. It must be relative because Natural Selection is based around variation. Say there is an infestation of birds, and all moths die regardless of wingcolor or anything except being edible to birds, then that would not be covered with Darwinian fitness. Eventhough they become extinct, there is no selection against the moths, becaue there is no variant to differentiate with.If the entire point of Natural Selection is competing for resources between variants, then Natural Selection is false for not covering symbiosis etc.But again, several Darwinsts have expressely denied to me that competition between variants need take place for Natural Selection to apply. There's also no mention of competition between variants in the standard definition, differential reproductive success of variants. There just has to be a difference in reproductive success that relates to the different operation of the variants, for standard Natural Selection to apply.Yes referring me to the literature saying I just don't understand I take as making an argument from authority. Also you have no cause to say I should read that literature, since actually I don't make more mistakes, or show more ignorance in argument then you do. As before, there is no justification for including variation in the literature, but you make it seem as though there is by referring me to it, same as Taz refers me to "data" as if that is a justification. It is proper that those who enter something into a definition justify it's use, since it is very difficult to show uselesness of anything.Again, you only don't know what you're talking about in so far as you have not studied the usefulness of variation in Natural Selection, because there is no technical work that details the working of the theory of Natural Selection in that way.I think I've said everything in this post more then once in this thread, I think i will just stop after this.I'm not sure now about DNA being functionally unique, if that's the right word. You have to understand it in the context of my explanation of those words, which I still stand by.You fail to see the point that variation is routinely ignored in biology. When talking about peas, it's not neccesarily relevant to talk about variations of peas.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Arms have a heritability of zero, because arms are generally not varying genetically in the population. The title of the article I reffered to states: "Why do *adaptations* *generally* have a heritability of zero". Why don't you read the thing, since apparently you still don't comprehend heritability of zero of traits that are genetically uniform in a population.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Selection: the relationship of an organism to it's environment in terms of it's reproduction, where selecting for means a relationship that contributes to reproduction, and selecting against means a relationship that diminishes reproduction. I guess reproduction should be understood as reproductive stability / preservation.You must have the false idea that a symbiotic relationship between variants is somehow derived from a competitive relationship between variants.The story of the origin of the photosynthesis trait is not a story about the relative success of photosyntheis compared to non-photosynthesis (that's uninteresting), it's about how the relationship light-photosynthesis contributes to reproduction. Each variant has it's own story, just like frogs and elephants have their own story.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No the standard definition is differential reproductive success of variants, which is basically the same as the definitions you got from the web.I gave the cut-down definition, without variation, which you asked for, which is just my own.(edited to add)
I misunderstood, i figured you were asking for the cut-down definition because I already gave you the standard definition a couple of times before.hmmm and after all this, when someone else asks you for the justification to include variation, you can only give a vague story about carryingcapacity, competition and evolutionary meaningful and then hope that the one who'se asking doesn't know about Occam's razor.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 06-27-2003]

I'm afraid Peter, and several others on this ng have seen that selection without variation is very useful. They would want to talk consistently about the preservation of a species, about negative and positive selective factors that influence the preservation, in respect to endangered species, but also in respect to normal functioning of organisms. So that's why they have come to this rather bizarre position of at the same time acknowledging variation can be cut, but that it should be included because... I don't know. They also say that everyone in science knows that selection is essentially without variation, which they just made up of course.One of them stated that you can simply enter zero (or 1) in the number of variations, and that's why the standard definition also includes selection without variation.And after such a difference in opinion is shown, Percipient will most likely pop up with a post, saying something like "we're all on the same page" just to say that these differences don't matter, and all positions are about the same. And then the issue is burried until I post about it again.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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

"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

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

When I said that in Natural Selection variation is assumed to exist, I didn't mean assumed as opposed to observed to exist, but I just meant that the origin of the variation is left unexplained in Natural Selection. So your accusation of lying is simply baseless.Dr Tazimus Maximus:
"Selection is based on interactions between an individual and it's total environment."You can't say something like that, since Natural Selection is based on a variational pairing and not on an individual. I can say things like that, since my definition is individual. I have to insist that since this difference between individual and a variational pairing is the subject at issue in this thread, that you strictly stick to the definition which you support.You might find it terribly difficult to do that, to stick to describing in terms of variational pairing, but that is what you support, and that you find it difficult, that you can't talk sensibly about an individual organisms fitness, that is a big point in favour of the more flexible definition without variation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

in 8,9,10 and 11, things are messy due to the comparisonSo then the explanation for the diversity is mutation, and through selection the diversity is limited to mutations that contribute to reproduction. Still no need for comparison.I was using diversity as different kinds of organisms, I don't really understand what you mean by diversity. Anyway, you have no basis to accuse of me of anything.Peter wrote:
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.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The standard definition of Natural Selection, differential reproductive success of variants, is wrong, for requiring variation to apply. There is no justification for including variation in the definition, so variation should be cut from the definition of Natural Selection.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu