Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection...

{NOTE: This topic is a continuation of the closed "Destroying Darwinism" - Adminnemooseus}

quote:

---

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

---

The above is Syamsu's objection to natural selection.My feeling, based upon this, is that there is a mis-underastanding
going on in which Syamsu thinks that natural selection is
a 'theoretical framework' when it is in fact natural selection
(and the objectionable definitions) is an observed natural
phenomenon.I don't actually think that comparison is fundamantal problem
within a theoretical framework ... but it certainly isn't
a problem in the description of something which includes it.Perhaps 'blue' is inapproriate when describing the sky
since it is just a comparative label placed upon a particular
frequency of light.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-08-2003]

We should probably also take out the word differential, as that obviously relies on a comparison.So, Natural selection is reproductive success.You must be a glutton for punishment Peter, starting this thread up again.

It's not a natural phenomenon since the reproductive success of the variants can be partly or wholy unrelated to each other. It's not a natural phenomenon that this mountain is higher then that mountain, it's not a natural phenomenon that this variant has a higher reproductive success then the other variant. It's not a natural phenomenon that while the sun goes down, water runs downs the creek etc. things have to be related to each other for it to be a phenomenon, otherwhise I think the word phenomenon can be used *very* deceptively.You agree that it is valid that selection is about the relation of an organism to the environment in terms of reproduction. Having admitted that variation doesn't apply fundamentally, it is a total mystery to me why you want to have variation included in the standard definition. Your story about blue sky doesn't help me see any more reason to include variation, I don't see why you started a new thread on the strength of that argument.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It keeps me occupied when the other threads go quiet My main reason was to get Syamsu's opinion on the difference
between a 'theory' and a 'description of ...'I now seem to have come up against having to define 'phenomenon'
and the idea that the height of mountains is not a natural
phenomenon.Ah well ....

Peter, perhaps it's better to leave well enough alone. I don't think a new thread is likely to convince your opponent, who has demonstrated repeatedly (and I mean repeatedly) his inability and/or unwillingness to grasp the concept of natural selection. The fact that he started a thread with the subtle title of "Destroying Darwinism" should give you an idea of how open he is to honest debate.The main issue here is variation, which I argue is never meaningfully absent from the Darwinian algorithm. The tiresome series of arguments concerning whether or not evolution could take place without variation was either an intellectual parlor game or a mere exercise in futility. What could possibly be gained by arguing such an unrealistic point at such length?The greedy-reductionist definition of variation certainly tends to focus on genetic similarity. Don't forget that there is variation even in the most similar of offspring, as I myself can attest. I'm an identical twin, and so share identical chromosomes with my twin brother. However, I have a double uvula and he does not. Isn't this variation? Offspring of asexual reproduction don't demonstrate much genetic variation either, but this is no reason to pretend that genetic variation is the only basis on which natural selection operates.Natural selection can act upon environmental variation as well: cattle that graze near a cliff may be more likely to be selected out due to a landslide, for instance. If a difference in diet makes one segment of the population more prone to parasites, isn't this natural selection acting on variation too?This 'objection' to natural selection is absolutely meaningless. Variation is always present, and its degree will help determine the rate of evolution through natural selection.

OK, let's put it this way.Natural selection is a description of something that happens
in nature.The 'definition' of natural selection is not a 'definition'
at all ... it is a statement that summarises observed
activity in nature. The basic observation has been extrapolated
to account for the divergence into separate species.That last point (divergence into species) is nothing to do with
the observation of natural selection, it is a supposed consequence
and is thus outside the scope I have set for this thread.IFF 'differential reproductive success of variants' was a
'theory' I might require a little more rigour in the
definition (maybe).IF 'differential reproductive success of variants' is a statement
of what is observed to happen in nature then I don't see that
your stated (in post 1 here) objection has any merit.Object to it as a cause for speciation if you wish ... that's for
another topic though....and I don't agree with the 'in terms of reproduction' bit.My view is that natural selection is a survival filter that
has an impact on individual reproductive output
(that's not the same).Variation is in the DESCRIPTION of natural selection, becuase that
is what is being described.I woul equally be interested in what you mean by natural phenomenon
since all the things you mention would fall into that category
as far as I can see.

Syamsu,Assume you have a hundred turtles and 25% die young-- without reproducing-- due to some unknown factor. That is natural selection. These animals died for some reason, while the others did not. This leaves you with 75% of the original population to reproduce and start the next generation. Since that ill-fated 25% never reproduced, those genes were lost to the next generation or reduced in frequency. Each new generation is made up of the children of the animals that didn't die too young to breed, or each generation is made up mostly of the children of the animals who made the most babies. I don't know how it could be more obvious.1) Natural Selection
a. Stuff dies and hence does not reproduce. These genes are lost.
b. Stuff doesn't die but has slower than average reproduction rates. The frequency these genes occur are reduced in the next generation.2) Evolution.
a. Natural selection and a lot of time, as well as drift, etc.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Like I said I've stopped trying to discuss what natural
selection is/isn't and am trying the tack of pointing
out that natural selection isn't a theory but a description
of what happens in nature.If that doesn't have any kind of impact (and I doubt that
it will) I really will drop it.This has become something of a habit though, I have been engaged
on this one for nearly two years on and off ever since I spotted
a 'falsifying evolution' or some-such thread by, oh what was
the fella's handle ... oh, yes Syamsu

quote:

---

Like I said I've stopped trying to discuss what natural
selection is/isn't and am trying the tack of pointing
out that natural selection isn't a theory but a description
of what happens in nature.

---

It is going to be tough to do this while Syamsu doesn't understand what NS is.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I thought I'd try to tackle the nature of the
beast in very high-level terms first ... you know
nothing too complicated.Just a kind of ... see it's just a description, like saying
the sky is blue. That's not theoretical ... it just is.

"It's not a natural phenomenon that
this mountain is higher then that mountain, "You mean, Mt Everest isn't objectively taller than Mt. Washington (the "mountain" in the center of Pittsburgh PA?). So we can't make predictions about, say, air pressure at the summit of one versus the other? So it's somehow misleading and dangerous to talk about the altitude of your destination "compared to" your current location?The idea that relationships are somehow artificial and dangerous and need to be taken out of "basic definitions" in science is and always has been (for years now) Syamsu's bizzare Holy Grail. I have long stopped following his threads except for occasionally checking in just to be reassured, that yes, the world is still turning and yes, Syamsu is still flogging that same dead horse. As far as I can tell, Syamsu only has about 3 different posts that he just writes and rewrites. Three might be generous.

I got him to agree to something once, and then he contradicted himself in the very next post and basically repeated the original assertion he had made about 100 posts earlier.He's basically a belligerant Brad McFall, only a little more intelligible.Next April 1, let's all agree with him and see what he does. [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-08-2003]

I have seen/read repetition. But sometimes this is necessary when changing the scope of respondents.

quote:

---

It is going to be tough to do this while Syamsu doesn't understand what NS is.

---

You mean that you have not heard that Syamsu knows more about NS and understands it better than ANYONE else on this board, at least so he claimed in the parent to this thread . And that is without understanding any of my examples of populations (ie part of the gaussian curve example), genetics and molecular biology (genotypic vs phenotypic and the difference between particulate genes and the blending of phenotypic traits) or essentially anything about modern biology. He is still The Man.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

You say that but if one reads the lattest book out on Galton it is EASY to maintain as S had done ( I do admit not getting into his posts very far the second time becuase I have not been satisfied that he had really answered me but such as to further his own posts which being a selfish gene myself I do pretty much for my own as I have not the more time to figure someones' line out when it could goth both ways which is what I prefer to see more of and then later sort the stuff out...) for a simple knowledge of the early history of biometry (which I have not also studied much but would only take one a good long weekend to do to this need...)would make anyone willing to respond to anyone who dares to be the man for the channels time.It turns out that NS needs to be discussed in terms of continua and not some general scientific attitude and when I see THIS I will too get up to any necessary speed faster than I guess I could type a word of it.I find Fisher's reference to gas moleucles actually a HINDRANCE to sorting in NS from any artifical selection of artifacts man makes.He is using a logic indeed but I use words. Words will win if this is a debate. I have said the debate is over however. That is not a contradiction but it appears to be one.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-08-2003]