Destroying Darwinism

Where, in which post, in response to whatbe specific

Essentially yes I would consider all those as discrete uniquely specific changes, and not fluid gradual changes. I would also not consider changes in the binary code of computerlanguage gradual which is what DNA is often compared to. I think it would be fundamentally false to typify a 0/1 an off/on language as gradual. Gradual would be a language where between of and on, there also is 1/2 1/4 1/8 etc.You seem to be missing the point that Darwinists thought that genes were fluid, so as to provide lots of generic variation in blending. You are just making up ad-hoc arguments after the foundation of Darwinists for gradualism, blending inheritance has been proven wrong by Mendellism.The accumulation is not gradual because it is not fluid. Also the rate of change differs.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well now you have finally defined your terms properly I would agree with you, there are no mutations which produce a base which is partially A and G. Not to mention that it is a 'binary' with states A,C,T and G and discrete while all of these states are, I think you would be hard put to tell me which one is 'on' and which 'off'. You still haven't addressed the central point, which was to specific and unique functionsThe problem is that no one is claiming that mutation itself is a gradual process. So well done Syamsu, you have managed to conclusively defeat an opinion which nobody holds.A single mutation does not have to turn a whole gene on or off to have an effect on fitness. Would a point mutation leading to an enzyme to be more effective be turning something on or off would you say?How can the rate of change differ for a single trait that is either on or off?As for ad hoc arguments, perhaps you are refering to the modern synthesis which reconciled Darwinism and Mendelism decades ago. As to my missing the point as to what Darwinists thought I am slightly more interested in what current workers in the field of evolutionary biology think, as I said before, if all you want is a discussion off the history of evolutionary theory then you are approaching it in a very strange way.In terms of natural selection the fact that the variation exists is the important thing, whether you call them mutations or any other term. The fact that historically some proponents of Darwin's theories have been opposed to Mendel's work does not stop genetic variation being a suitable substrate for natural selection.[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 06-25-2003]

In response to my posting the link you began talking about your fathers green arm, saying the greenness had a heritability of zero, while the article referred to, was discussing heritability of zero in the context of fixatation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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

A lie. In never made such a comment and I expect a withdrawal of the accusation.

How can you have a differential success without comparing to something else? Perhaps you were thinking of comparing homogenetic populations in differing environments. That would certainly be a very valid and usefull approach for a number of issues, but it isn't what you've been saying and it doesn't address how you intend to approach population genetics. Where does the differential come from, it has to be environmental or genetic. If you are looking at one population then the environment should be the same, therefore the differential must come from the genetic variability.That varying alleles are irrelevant or non-functional is only your groundless assertion. Since the entire point of NS is that certain favourable alleles are preserved, if you like, or increased then the variability of alleles is central to it.As soon as you exist in the genetics of a population I am looking at then I will include you Syamsu. This is a distinctly idiosyncratic way of defining the function of a mutation. Or to be more honest, a completely irrelevant one.What is the functional difference between one mutation which causes the loss of kinase activity in a transmembrane protein and a different mutation causing the same loss of function?I can be confident of my position because I know what I am talking about. You on the other hand make up loose hypotheticals to attempt to support your arguments, attack modern evolutionary theory on the grounds that some of the proponents of evolution from a century ago got a number of things distinctly wrong, avoid answering direct questions which harm your argument, continually shift the focus of you argument and show a thorough lack of understanding of population genetics not to mention molecular genetics. You also seem to fail to appreciate that all sciences have their own technical terms, many of which are inconsistent or illogical and may simply be preserved from historical usage. This doesn't make the concepts the terms refer to obsolete or less useful. Now this is just bizarre, I never said that endangered species would be exempt from selective pressure. I said that in some cases they might not equate to a malthusian population. Also in very inbred populations there may be a considerable amount of problems of purely genetic origin with little input from the environment. Not to mention the various artificial selctive pressures put on many by hunting or breeding programs.And once again you want to try and obviate the need for looking at variation by looking at two populations in different environments. In what way is fitness useless?genotypeffspringEnvironment 1: AA:25 Aa:50 aa:25Environment 2: AA:75 Aa:25 aa:0In your method we simply look at the reproductive success of AA and see that it has gone from 25 to 75. All this tells us is that the AA genotype reproduces more in this particular environment, it does not tell us anything about its fitness in the new environment unless we compare it with the other variants, the new environment may simply be more permissive generally with a similar increase in all variants. By comparing the variants we can see that there is selection acting upon the population.

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

Do you understand the concept of differential?The fitness of the A allele in a specific environment is not differential to anything.I have not added the requirement that the environments be the same, that has always been a requirement. Two seperate groups of frogs, one in the andes and one in the himalayas, are clearly not part of the same interbreeding population. If you look at a group of organisms in 2 different environments then you are looking at 2 different populations. Or do you intend to take your sample group and transport them to a new environment?The entire point of natural selection is that the variants compete for resources!!! But the reason they have to be in the same environment is because otherwise they don't constitute the same population!!The fact that elephants are irrelevant when discussing frogs means nothing at all, you keep saying it but that doesn't make it mean anything. Elephants and frogs are clearly not part of the same population, unless you were looking at the population consisting
of all vertebrates perhaps. Within a population there will be variation, except in a few very artificial circumstances.If I was doing a genetic analysis of a population you happened to be in then obviously I would be including the genetic variation that you represent in that.Could you point out exactly where I have refered you to 'the literature' except in very specific circumstances where it has been in proof of a point I made? I am particularly keen on this point since doing so would have been a violation of the forum guidelines. I ahve suggested that you should try and familiarise yourself with the rudiments of evolutionary theory and population genetics, is that what you meant? Can you show me where I have made any argument from authority? I don't need to do the arguing at all, you are the one who has concoted some idiotic reduced form of natural selection so the burden of proof rather lies on you to convince anyone that your method is even approaching as good as, letter alone superior to, the current one. Why should I be the only one having to justify my posistion? Apart from my own satisfaction what possible benefit am I garnering from justifying anything to you? I am trying to have a sensible scientific debate, but your utter unfamiliarity with some fairly basic concepts makes that hard.What makes you say I don't know what I'm talking about? Do you just mean that I don't agree with you? Those are two very different things.Of course a species could become extinct due to circumstances outside the concept of fitness in terms of natural selection. If I took a gun and decided to shoot all the remaining Red squirrels in Scotland then they would become extinct, no due to a lack of fitness for their environment but due to human idiocy. I suppose you could then argue that a smaller more invisible squirrel would have been fitter but you would look pretty silly doing so.I see you have completely given up trying to justify your contention that all mutations are functionally unique, probably just as well since it was one of the more obviously ridiculous things you have said.Can you try and limit yourself to one or two specific points a post, this sort of scattergun technique makes it even harder to work out what your ridiculous argument is this time, and it also makes these posts rather long.

quote:

---

Wounded King says: it's evolutionary meaningful to include variants
Syamsu says: differential reproductive success is solely about reproduction/extinction, not mutation or recombination

---

Taz says that Wounded King has provided data through references (and that is not an appeal to authority Siam-Sue, an appeal to authority is when you say that person X says this so it must be true, even if and espeially if, person X provides no data. Kind of like Mohamed's statements of authority solely being based on an appeal to his concept of a supreme being, THAT is an appeal to autheority) and that you have provided nothing but more hand waving, the errection of strawmen and gross errors in observed biology. Taz also says that your attemtps to redefine reproductive sucess are crap, the mutations and non-mutational recombinantions which lead to variation are the source of changes in reproductive and environmental sucess. Furthermore, Taz says that your understanding of genetics is crap,

quote:

---

historical context shows that to include variation has been damaging to science in view of denying Mendellism,

---

is another example of your lack of understanding of Mendellian and non-Mendelian genetics (do you even know the difference?). Mendillian genetics concerns the particulate inheritence of genetic traits that, at the phenotypic level, may or may not be blended witht he effects of inherited traits. It also allows for the inheritence of an altered genetic trait (ie a mutation) without the dilution of the trait, although it says NOTHING about the potential blending of traits at the phenotypic level.

quote:

---

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.)

---

Damn Syamsu, how many errors can you make in a sentance. 1) Heritability for a trait that is inherited is not zero, you misread the earlier article that you cited. The variation within a population for an allele which is 100% fixed is zero. Please not that MANY alleles NEVER reach 100% fixation due to genetic drift, range in a larger population, or selective pressure against 100% fixation, it the heterozygous population may enjoy an advantage. 2) There can be selection against an endangered species, it just does not follow that there IS selection against an endangered species. Two completely different things. 3) Fitness is not a relative measure of variation, it is a relative measure of how well an organism delas with its environment w.r.t. survival and w.r.t. reproduction. Variation provides a range of possibilities for changing definitions of fitness to employ for changing conditions.

quote:

---

I think that about sums it up, I fail to see how you could be confident of your position.

---

Actually I can understand how you are confident in yout position. A combination of ignorance of pretty much any area of the biological world and arrogance based on a inappropriate use of faith in an area that it does not apply.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 06-26-2003]

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

quote:

---

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.

---

You are using neither, it look sfar more like a definition made up from your own head.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

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

Actually a good example of an argument from authority would be saying that you were assured of something by a knowledgeable evolutionist.

This is blatantly untrue, it may be that a very simplistic model of natural selection is not the whole story and doesn't cover every possibility. But the models of population genetics are quite sophisticated and can represent a variety of activities in a population such as disruptive selection and stabilising selection. This hardly seems to be a statement that you can make about yourself any more than I could, you hardly count as an impartial party performing an objective evaluation. This is just madness, differential reproductive success is exactly the same as competition provided there are factors limiting the size of the population.The reason for including variation in the literature is that that is what it is all about! The entire history of evolution is about the origins of novel variants and their relative success.Your infestation of birds is like my hunting spree. It is a radical change in the environment which effectively renders the relative fitness of the moths for their usual environment irrelevant. There is as you say no selection going on since both variants become extinct. Once again, the point is the differential reproductive success.As you point out we seem to be going round in circles. I hope you can come back when you have fleshed out your reduced version of NS a bit more so we can discuss its merits.We both seem fairly firmly entrenched in our respective positions so perhaps as you say we should just call it a day.Just out of interest which definition were you thinking of as the standard one, you never made it very clear.