Destroying Darwinism

I think you're also much frustrated because you don't actually comprehend selection without variation. Once again, selection is then not between organisms like you repeatedly said, and continue to say now, it's between reproduction and no reproduction / preservation or extinction for the single organism / trait.If you would just put yourself in the shoes of an environmentalist concerned with saving some specie, then it should be very easy to get a grasp of non-variational selection. There are some relationships between organism and environment that threaten preservation, which are negative selective factors, and there are some relationships that promote preservation, which are positive selective factors. etc. etc.The focus in this discussion is always on the justification for including variation in the definition. The reference to Mendel shows that including variation in the definition lead to the error of denying Mendellism for up to 72 years. Let's just remember that Darwinists have no explanation why they didn't accept Mendel's theory for up to 72 years, other then making the highly dubious claims that Mendel's work was faulty (it wasn't), or that Mendel didn't advertise his work enough (also false).Your comment about different apples just strike me as ridiculous, jas it does to most creationists. Sure when you first have a black moth and a white moth, then you can have a population changing from white to black. But the point is to get the white moth and the black moth in the first place, a mutation. After the mutation it is just a matter of extinction or preservation of that mutation, and that should be understood as the selection.As mentioned several times before in this thread, enviromentalists essentially look on a variation as being symbiotic to other variants, where Darwinists look on variation in terms of one or the other surviving. So you're right that enviromentalists look at variation, but they do so in a way that is opposite to the logic in Darwinism where variants are said to have an encroachment/replacement relationship to each other, and not a symbiotic relationship.I have a problem with understanding that a genetically specified trait, which then is passed on to offspring, still has a heritabilty of zero in Darwinspeak. When a trait is inherited then it has heritability, obviously. Actually most people have a problem with understanding that, like Autocatalyst in this thread. If we exclude variation from the definition then there wouldn't be this problem.A population of gentically identical organisms has no fitness in Darwinspeak, since fitness is a relative measure of variation in Darwinism. This sort of defining should make any environmentalist trying to talk about preserving a specie absolutely tongtied for words.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Your problem with heritability seems to be based on the fact that you don't understand what the term means, and I agree that sometimes technical terminology does not agree with what a layperson might expect, but this is hardly a problem peculiar to Biology let alone evolutionary biology. Heritability does not describe the extent to which a trait is genetic.Heritability describes the proportion of variation of a specific phenotypic trait which can be attributed to genetic variation. There may be considerable variation of phenotype, even in a genetically identical population, due to environmental factors. By dividing the genetic variation by the phenotypic variation you produce a value which represents the degree to which variation in that phenotypic trait is due to genetic factors, this is the heritability of the trait. Obviously this is applicable only to populations and not to individuals as an individual has no genetic variation on its own. Perhaps it is your dislike of population genetics which lead you to misinterpret the concept.Evolutionary biology is not about conservation of species on the edge of extinction, why should I put myself in the shoes of an environmentalist. I have already agreed that a population on the edge of extinction would generally benefit from genetic variation, and the reasons aren't to do with symbiosis in any normally recognised sense, they are to do with genetics and the dangers of having an inbred population. Most environmentalist would be only too aware of the dangers in a genetically identical population, why else would they be so keen to maintain and introduce variation. If the small genetically similar populations are so fit then why are they becoming extinct?Do you actually have any evidence of environmentalists who don't believe in natural selection, or the importance of variation? Or ones who talk about the members of the populations they are trying to conserve in terms of symbiosis. You seem to be making an appeal to the authority of a group but we only have your word for it that they would ascribe to the views you attribute to them, I am highly skeptical. Quite why the weight of the views of environmentalists should outweigh those of evolutionary biologists I'm not sure about either.Traditional Darwinian natural selection and evolution are normally considered in terms of Malthusian populations which are at the limit of their carrying capacity for one resource or another. This is much more useful in evolutionary terms, species on the edge of extinction are not promising candidates to give rise to new species after all. The Malthusian nature of the original theories is less relevant now that we have a greater understanding of the genetics involved in production of variation and the nature of dominant and recessive traits and other types of gentic interaction, but most populations are closer to a malthusian population than the other extreme which you insist on focussing on.Nice to see the melanic moths making a reappearance. As you say mutation can give rise to the alternate trait, but that particular trait has not lead to the extinction of either white or melanic moths, nor does it have to. If the environment was solely consistent of trees suitable for the melanic moths then as you suggest the white should be extinct. Since there is some variation in the environment of the melanic moth population however it is able to sustain both black and white moths allowing them to interbreed.Including variation is no reason to discount Mendel, unless of course you can show that Mendelian alleles are not due to genetic variation? The oversight of Mendel's work was certainly lamentable, but his work is no longer overlooked it is central to modern evolutionary theory. It hardly seems reasonable to throw out the concept of natural selection (for 72 years?) just to appeal to your sense of fairness, given that you have no apparent scientific grounds for getting rid of it.These posts are becoming increasingly long, could we seperate this into seperate threads perhaps or concentrate on one particular objection which you have to natural selection at a time?Yours,WK

are getting the a handle on Syamsu. His distortions, attempts at bait and switch with a topic and, IMO, outright lies are enough to piss-off even the calmest of people. I have trounced his substanceless arguements and "examples" time and time again. provided him with references and abstracts which he proceeded to wither ignore or mis-quote and mos-state the contents of, and generally illustrated his ignorance of ANY area of biological science. There is a post in this thread that starts with Behold the Text-Book Creationist that you might find amusing. It outlines and provides examples for Syamsu's delivery of a constant load of BS, and while this might be good fertilizer for a field of agricultural crops, it will not provide a good yield of intellectual ideas.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 06-23-2003]

Actually I do understand what the term heritability means in it's Darwinist interpretation, I didn't misinterpret, Audiocatalysis misinterpreted, after reading it, and he's a Darwinist. I just find the meaning bizarre, which leads to misunderstanding, just as I find it bizarre to talk about the spreading of black moths, or some type of apple, as the evolution of black moth / apple, or selfish genes for that matter, or innate aggression. Many Darwinist definitions have an awkard place in the organization of knowledge.You haven't actually offered a justification for including variation. As before you can describe evolution with mutation, and then describe preservation or extinction of that mutant as selection. Obviously when the subject at issue is the preservation or extinction of a mutant (like a "prototype" photosynthesis trait for instance) , then it is besides the point to compare to it's ancestor. So evolution is no justification for including variation in the definition.Just as saying that variation exists is no justification, which you still seem to be offering as some kind of argument.We would just throw out variation from the concept of Natural Selection, which would do no damage to science whatsoever, also not to evolutionary science. A definition without variation is more flexible so that can it deal with more evolutionary scenario's then just the Malthusian scenario.You lament the oversight of Mendel's work, but likely you will next do a little character assassination on Mendel, who apparently caused this oversight to occur. It's the Darwinists who are causing the grief here! Gradualism is still a part of modern Darwinism, Darwinism is therefore essentially still inconsistent with Mendellism, because Mendellism says that genes are discrete entities. Genes don't change gradually, they change eratically.(edited to add)
I'm not really appealing to the authority of environmentalists. I'm just using the logic that if variation facillitates preservation then the variants are symbiotic to each other. Why do you appeal to the authority of environmentalists, in stead of just arguing the use of the word symbiotic. I would guess that environmentalists use Darwinist terminology in a nonvariational way. If white moths decrease, and black moths increase then white moths are selected against, and black moths are selected for. If moths decrease then moths are selected against. I guess they argue like that, I will try to find some reference for that.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 06-23-2003]

You have no justification for including variation in the definition of Natural Selection either, just like all the rest.I think you might have mislead some people to think that among your lenghty posts (in which you endlessly pontificate the authority of the people whose science is questioned in this thread) that there is a justification somewhere in there for including variation in the definition of selection. But really you just give the same already refuted arguments that everybody else does, such as "variation exists therefore it has to be included", you just spend more words saying it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

you just spend more words saying it

---

Then I will be brief.

quote:

---

in which you endlessly pontificate the authority of the people whose science is questioned in this thread

---

Lie

quote:

---

But really you just give the same already refuted arguments that everybody else does, such as "variation exists therefore it has to be included",

---

LieYou have neither refuted one piece of DATA that I have included, nor have you refuted the theoretical arguement which you asked for and I provided; an arguement that I might add was based on data and which you admitted that you did not understand.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 06-23-2003]

Of course the reason that you don't refer to your justification is because it doesn't exist. It's all just hot air about authority.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Your points are becoming increasingly facile. If by erratically you mean randomly then I would agree, I would also allow that not all gene changes are minimal, point mutations are not the be all and end all, indels and gene duplications are also important. A point mutation can produce a quite significant phenotypic effect however, one which might be beyond the classical 'gradualist' boundaries you use as a strawman but which are one of the profitable areas of study in modern evolutionary and developmental genetics.Being erratic does not mean that changes cannot be gradual however, a point mutation may make a very slight change to a phenotypic trait. I don't know how much more gradual change in a gene can be than a point mutation. As to genes being discrete entities, this depends what sort of gene you are thinking of, a gene in terms of modern genetics is probably as discrete as any of Mendel's segregating traits, in fact as I pointed out at least two of the genes for Mendel's trait have been identified.I have no intention of knocking Mendel, but as evolution has advanced since Darwin's time so has genetics advanced since Mendel's. You seem to be doing both branches of biology a great disservice by portraying them as static and intransigent, which, much as you may wish to portray evolutionary biologists in this light, is no more true for them than for any other branch of the sciences.Why do you object to the suggestion that we should use variation in discussing natural selection because variation exists in natural populations. Since selection is normally discussed in the context of evolution, as in a change in allele frequency within a population, it seems reasonable to look at these factors in terms of NS.By talking about mutation and preservation or extinction you seem to think you are not talking about variation. What are mutations if not genetic variation? what is the preservation or extinction of the mutant variant if not a change in the allele frequency of the population? Once and for all, do you think that a single point mutation is sufficient to decide to treat a single organism as an entre population? If not then what frequency would the gene need to reach before you decided it counted as a population in your own right.As pointed out your non-varying form, which is still not a form of selection lacking as it does anything to actually select for, is a much worse description of most populations than a Malthusian model.Is your model anything other than pretending that population dynamics, in the absence of genetics, is enough to tell you about natural selection?I complained about your appeal to authority because you were portraying this use of symbiosis as one you were familiar with from environmentalist work. I had already taking exception to your terminology when you first talked about symbiosis between variants within a population, which is when you bought the environmentalists into it presumably to bolster your choice of phrase.Yours,WK[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 06-25-2003]

I just find it a great hindrance that fitness only applies to variation, and doesn't apply to an organism fitting into an environment so that it is preseverd. Did you know that Darwin seriously considered to name Natural Selection, Natural Preservation in stead? I think if he had done that then you wouldn't have the dissonance of thought that comes from conflating selection with choice. Obviously when for instance the preservation/extinction of a "protoype" photosynthesis trait is at issue, then the "prototype" photo synthesistrait is what is being selected. How on earth you can then persist in saying that nothing is selected in non-variational selection is beyond me. My arguments are really more straightforward then you give credit for.I'm not talking about variation when I describe the preservation/extinction of the prototype-photosynthesis plant. In describing it's preservation I might be referring to other variants in the population as a selection pressure. But that is not describing variation either, because it just one environmental factor among many.That is just not a logical argument to say that when variation exists that it should be part of the definition of Natural Selection. One mutation is enough to talk about evolution. After that we're talking about spreading and preserving. So yes a single mutation is enough to talk about a population. For instance, in view of selective pressure from a variant, the particular mutantpopulation must reach a certain minimum share of the totalpopulation for the reproductioncycle to become stable. So here I also use variation, and populationshare, but use it differently then in standard Natural Selection, I use them functionally as selective factors that determine preservation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

What is the mutation supposed to be spreading through? If you allow variation then the answer is obvious, the mutant allele is spreading through the population as its frequency increases. How can you be selecting for the photosynthetic trait if you do not have an alernative, that is not selection?How can you have 1 mutant, thats one individual not one specific mutation, as a whole population? Do you suddenly decide that all the other members of that population don't exist except as abstract 'selective pressures'. Your idea seems arbitrary and considerably less usefull than the normal comparative approaches. You are simply re-defining fitness as natural selection.What do you consider evolution to be? You obviously don't accept that it is a change in allele frequency in a population.

quote:

---

What do you consider evolution to be?

---

Very good question.Syamsu... I (among many others, it seems) am still waiting for some idea of how you think the present diversity of life came to be. You spend a lot of time attempting to trash commonly accepted ideas about evolution, but I still have no clue what your alternative is. Care to enlighten?

Please substantiate your claim that I have misinterpreted the meaning of heritability.

When you apply for a job, and you're the only candidate, then there's still selection, to see if you're up to the job. Just to show that it is still regular usage of selection to select without variation. You try to make it out as though my usage is somehow strange.To ignore the rest of the population is just the way knowledge works. The organism is on a planet, and the planet goes round a star. Why don't you include that in your theory of Natural Selection. You only include that which is relevant, when it's functional, Occam's razor. The theory becomes much more flexible this way, and is not limited to Malthusian scenario's.Let's just remember that people generally don't accept evolution as a change in allelle-frequency. Generally people are miffed at the idea that the evolution of a photosynthesis organism, starts with there being a photosynthesis organism. They are correct of course, you are bending language to suit your needs, just like you bend language with the heritiability of zero for traits that are inherited, and fitness.
A mutation also doesn't actually spread through a population like you say, diseases spread through a population. Mutants may replace other members in a population.The evolution of photosynthesis is a sequence of mutations from organism that didn't have it to organisms that did have it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

double post[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 06-24-2003]

Jobs are a good example. What you seem to be saying is that there is a selection process in a job which you have to go through in order to be employed, fair enough. This is just a name however, the selection process cannot select without different options to select from, if there is only 1 candidate there is no selection to be made. Similarly all the various mechanisms involved in natural selection can operate on a heterogeneic population but nothing will be selected because there is nothing to select from.Disregard what is irrelevant certainly, but to most people the actual composition of the population that is being studied would be a highly relevant factor, you seem peculiar in this regard.Which people don't generally accept evolution as a change in allele-frequency? and what does that have to do with your random statement about the evolution of photosynthesis starting in a photosynthetic organism, a ludicrous proposistion which no one, apart from you, has made.I didn't say anything about how a mutation spread through the population, I certainly didn't liken it to a virus. Anyone who is familiar with the concepts of genetics will understand that I was talking, again, about an increase in the frequency of a particular mutant allele within the population. And you are a fine one to talk about replacement how can a mutant replace anything in a population if every mutation produces a new population?As to your talk of the gradual development of photosynthesis, this is the most audacious move yet, you are the one who brought up a theoretical example in which photosynthesis suddenly sprang into being as if from nowhere. And finally we are back to asking what such a sequence of mutations is if not a gradual accumulation of particular variants from a species gene pool.TTFN,WK