Destroying Darwinism

You gave the oxford dictionary definition:the passing of physical or mental characteristics genetically from one generation to another.When in the Darwinist definition of heritability a trait is not heritable when it is fixed/uniform in the population.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As far as I can tell you have added nothing to the justifications for including variation I gave in post 1. It is just variation exists, and competition between variants.You think it strange selectioncriteria for a job are still selectioncriteria even when there's only one candidate, and I think the Darwinist definitions about fitness, heritability etc are strange. However I can demonstrate that my defining is straightforward and consistent, and you can't.A mutant replaces another organism when if the mutant were not there, the other organism would have been. When something is spreading throughout the population, then that says to me that the population size remains the same.You have no argument, and I can't help you, because I don't have a justification of including variation in the definition of Natural Selection either.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

doublepost deleted[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 06-24-2003]

If the mutant takes the place of a less successful variant then why is the population not constant? Why should it take the place of anything in your system? Even your objections are not logical or consistent.Quite why you should think something spreading through a population would require a constant population size is beyond me, although I would suspect it is connected to your inability to grasp the concepts of population genetics. As far as your defining being straightforward and consistent that is fine as long as you are only trying to define the population growth of a clonal population, but a method to describe the growth of a clonal population is not sufficient for natural selection. The only way to make this useful in evolutionary terms is to compare it to the growth seen in the 'other' populations.[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 06-24-2003]

I gave an oxford dictionary definition after giving a definition as appears in evolutionary literature. I really fail to see your problem. I agree with woundedking and you that there is an added complexity to the term when used in the evolutionary sense. I agree that it is possible to have a heritability of zero. The equation has three variables, if the genetic variation is zero, heritability equals zero. If, as you seem to be getting at, genetic variation and phenotypic variation equals zero, heritability equals zero. The terminology was developed to deal with populations containing variation. Perhaps this is why you persist in finding difficulties with the concept.

You objected to me saying that your fathers arm has a heritability of zero, eventhough you have an arm. Now you say you understand about heritability of zero. You didn't understand, which is why you responded post after post saying I'm wrong.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

How does job candidacy spread through a population? Lousy example S

How is it useful evolutionary? The only reason you can say frequency changes are useful evolutionary, is because you have defined evolution as frequency changes. In frequency changes what is observed is just reproduction, copying the same thing over and over, that doesn't seem very useful in evolutionary terms to me, because I define evolution as mutation/recombination. Unless you want to include mutation as a frequency change in the population, which would make your discipline even more messy then it already is.What is useful is the relationship between organism and environment in terms of reproduction / preservation, selection. Besides that the sequence of random mutations have historical interest.So I take it that your justification for including variation is that it is evolutionary meaningful to include it.The evolution of the photosynthesistrait:There was a photosynthesistrait and then it's frequency in the population increased, due to it reproducing more then the ones that didn't have the trait.There was a mutation which lead to the prototype photosynthesis trait, which then spread into areas where there was light, since the relationship light-photosynthesis contributes to reproduction.Of course what you really want is an example of multiple photo-synthesis traits one being more efficient then the other, so that the one competitively replaces the other to extinction. Presuming the existence of several photosynthesistraits, and describing that as the evolution of the photosynthesistrait, doesn't seem so absurd as presuming the existence of an original photosynthesistrait, and calling that the evolution of the photosynthesistrait. Making a comparison between photosynthesistraits also doesn't seem so absurd then, because you have a vaguely functional point in comparing. The comparing describes a competitive relationship until extinction between variants, in stead of that both the original and the mutant are preserved.I'm quite sure your view of Nature is prejudiced by your faulty definition of Natural Selection. You just imagine evolution and Nature to be like multiple photosynthesistraits competing until extinction, where in actual fact all other type of relationships between variants besides competition, and mutations don't provide generic slight differences but specific and mostly unique functions.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

OH MY GOD!!!!!!I didnt get any further through your post than this You have balls of steel my friend!! LOL!!Your entire argument has been that there is no need for variation in natural selection and that all that should be looked at is the number of offspring produced. Quite how that is anything other than reproduction is beyond me. You seem to be trying to use the last couple of posts to make out that I have been arguing the position that you started this thread off with.Of course a mutation is a change in allele frequency, it may makes things 'messier' but it does so in order to make them more accurate. It should be patently obvious that if a previously non-existent allele arises due to mutation then that allele has changed from a 0 to a non 0 frequency. I'll read the rest of your post when I stop laughing.

Prove it! Show us that most mutations provide specific and unique functions. There can be several mutations in a gene leading it to be non functional in the same way, how is each of these mutations specific and unique. How are the many pleiotropic phenotypes seen in disrupting elements of a signalling pathway specific and unique? How is a point mutation anything other than a slight genetic difference, albeit a slight genetic difference that can lead to a substantial phenotypic difference.You accuse me of making things messy while you seem to believe that any form of mutation is cause for treating the organism it arises in as a new and specific population, thus needlessly confusing population genetics and the biological concept of species in one fell swoop.Comparing does not neccessitate competition to extinction, if the allele frequency remains constant then there is no reason to assume one variant will go to extinction, provided they are of comparable fitness. If of course there is a strong differential in fitness then you might well expect the less fit variant to go to extinction.

Well I would never have thought that you would be so sloppy as to mix changes in frequencies due to different reproducionrates, and changes in frequency due to mutation. Sure you can say frequency changes cover evolution if you do this, but again it is a conceptual mess. It's also strange that the standard definition of Natural Selection, differential reproductive success of variants, doesn't mention anything about mutation at all. You have simply argued yourself in a hole that no other Darwinist is in.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I only have to show the structure of DNA to prove that. It would be gradual if DNA consisted of fluids like Darwinists fantasized it did, and that then these fluids blend in mating.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

A genetic variant is a mutant.A mutation is genetic variation.Now which part didn't you understand?As to being sloppy, a change in allele frequency is a change in allele frequency, where did you imagine the variant alleles came from if not from mutation?Where are you getting this standard definition of yours? Is it your usual trick of representing a view held in the previous century as the current view of modern evolutionary biology?

So in fact you say a mutation is specific and unique in character and function simply becasue it has a slight change. You would say that a DNA point mutation causing the non synonymous change from a positively charged amino acid (aa) in the coded protein to a negatively charged aa was specific and unique compared to the change of the same nucleotide changing that positively charged amino acid (aa) into a different negatively charged aa?Does this include third base wobble. Would you consider the change of a third base nucleotide in a codon to be producing a mutation with a unique character and function. I think it is the function bit that brings you down, I am quite happy to agree that a specific mutation has its own unique character, but it is the function that is relevant to evolution.You seem to be claiming that simply because there is a finite, though really incredibly vast, number of mutations possible in the human genome the genome therefore does not allow gradual changes in a gene, remembering of course that no genes consist of only 1 nucleotide.In what way is the accumulation of mutations in a gene not a gradual process?

Mutation is the mother of variation.