Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,571 Year: 4,828/9,624 Month: 176/427 Week: 89/85 Day: 6/20 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinism and Nazism
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5109 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 31 of 90 (29530)
01-18-2003 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
01-18-2003 11:08 AM


P, as you probably know I am "lost" at this point. All I can make of it is that it is a "filler" for discussion before the point is made again. It may be due to cultural differences I suppose but when (I one) really wants to discuss the biology of it the circled wagons close in too fast to get an idea of what is even factually meant.
It seems odd that with both p and b confused or fused as I intend in this case to be that man behind the words has another BIOLOGICAL intent seems else such is disclosed highly unlikely. There are possible cross posting reasons but these kinds of things become impossible for the non system ad to minister to.
It not that it is "not fair" that someone posts this way but if delecting other non-responded to posts when this is what I am responding to is realy unfair. But that I addressed to the MOOSE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 01-18-2003 11:08 AM Percy has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5667 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 32 of 90 (29554)
01-19-2003 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
01-18-2003 11:08 AM


I don't see how Selection as I stated it for example with photosynthesis of plants, is somehow not understandable. I'm confident that this lack of understanding is solely due to creation vs evolution politics. My guess is no single "innocent" student would have a problem of not understanding selection as I set out with photosynthesis, nor have any problems with a formulation of selection that covers that. So I would guess that my position on this point is in principle easily accepted.
That comparison of organisms in terms of good and bad (as is commonly done with differential reproductive success of variants) is conducive to valuejudgements of good and bad, is perhaps a little more difficult to grasp. That would probably need to be substantiated with psychological research for it to be accepted.
Quetzal, Peter and John seem to think that Natural Selection is *already* understood exactly the same way as I said with photosynthesis of plants by mainstream science. Why then Natural Selection is not commonly formulated in a way that suits this usage you would have to ask them, that is in turn not understandable to me. Also I had numerous biologists explicitely denying that my use of selection without variation is valid. Elsewhere I did find one reference on the web which in passing talked about Selection on a clone population.
I think more likely there is much uncertainty about the meaning of Selection in mainstream science on this point, as you also seem to have demonstrated by not comitting yourself if or not Natural Selection applies to a clone population.
I guess you would need to look among philosophers who occupied themselves with Natural Selection theory, like Popper or Denett, if or not they made similar arguments as mine already (and dismmissed those arguments for some reason), arguments about whether or not variation should be included in the basic formulation of Natural Selection.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 01-18-2003 11:08 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 01-19-2003 9:01 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 39 by Quetzal, posted 01-20-2003 5:08 AM Syamsu has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22605
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 33 of 90 (29560)
01-19-2003 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Syamsu
01-19-2003 6:44 AM


I didn't ask about selection, nor about NS on clone populations. I asked if there was anyone else I might read whose shares your views on how the theory of evolution is structurally unsound and should be reformulated.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Syamsu, posted 01-19-2003 6:44 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Syamsu, posted 01-19-2003 10:00 AM Percy has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5667 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 34 of 90 (29564)
01-19-2003 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by nator
01-18-2003 7:57 AM


Reproducing organisms is the raw material Natural Selection works with, not neccesarily variation. That is much of the whole point here to have a definition of Natural Selection which doesn't require variation.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 01-18-2003 7:57 AM nator has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5667 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 35 of 90 (29565)
01-19-2003 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
01-19-2003 9:01 AM


Strawman\avoidance\lying etc. Your misconstrual of my position into evolution is wrong because of it's link to Social Darwinism is just politics.
Politics from a person who even decides it's too politically risky to answer if or not Natural Selection applies to a clone population, for fear of showing some uncertainty.
You don't belong on a discussion forum.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 01-19-2003 9:01 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 01-19-2003 10:41 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 37 by wj, posted 01-19-2003 11:46 PM Syamsu has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22605
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 36 of 90 (29566)
01-19-2003 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Syamsu
01-19-2003 10:00 AM


Syamsu writes:
Strawman\avoidance\lying etc. Your misconstrual of my position into evolution is wrong because of it's link to Social Darwinism is just politics.
Lying?
First, this makes no sense since I only asked a question.
Second, accusing fellow members of lying is a violation of rule 3 of the Forum Guidelines, as is your later statement that, "You don't belong on a discussion forum."
I don't understand your position. If there's no one out there you can reference to provide clarification then just say so.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Syamsu, posted 01-19-2003 10:00 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Syamsu, posted 01-20-2003 2:41 AM Percy has replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 90 (29618)
01-19-2003 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Syamsu
01-19-2003 10:00 AM


Syamsu, is your concept that natural selection acts at the species level? That competition and "fitness" is between species?
I can certainly confirm that your position on natural selection, evolution etc. is not clear to others and I think it disingenuous of you to ascribe avoidance, lying or misconstrual to others who can't follow you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Syamsu, posted 01-19-2003 10:00 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Syamsu, posted 01-20-2003 6:58 AM wj has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5667 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 38 of 90 (29623)
01-20-2003 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Percy
01-19-2003 10:41 AM


You did not only ask a question, you first misstated my position, and then asked if there was somebody else who had a position similar as mine. I then corrected your misstatement and referred you to people who argue something very similar as me about the formulation "survival of the fittest". Maybe you also don't understand these people, which includes many evolutionists. Maybe you will also say about them that they think evolution is wrong because of it's link to Social Darwinism and therefore has to be reformulated, but reasonably, you cannot be that dim.
You continue to misconstrue my argument saying that I am arguing about evolution, when I explicitely stated I am arguing about Natural Selection. Ridiculously you are now upset that I stick to the word selection in stead of use your misconstrual evolution. Seeing that you continue to misconstrue in this way, I assumed you have not taken back your orignial misstatement of my position that I supposedly argue evolution is wrong because of it's link to Social Darwinism.
I don't think anymore you are genuinely interested in finding people who think the same as me, I think you just want to say that nobody has the exactsame argument as me, to give credibility to an argument from majority. All elements in my argument are widely shared in some form eventhough nobody makes the exactsame argument as me.
I would be glad if an independent moderator judged whether or not you lied, since I think a moderator would be inclinded to be more careful then the average participant in coming to an opinion.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 01-19-2003 10:41 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by nator, posted 01-20-2003 8:41 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 01-20-2003 9:21 AM Syamsu has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5949 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 39 of 90 (29628)
01-20-2003 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Syamsu
01-19-2003 6:44 AM


Hi Syamasu,
You've brought up my agreement with you on some issue several times in this thread. I vaguely remember it, but could you provide the context again? I don't remember any discussion on photosynthesis, for example.
As to NS operating on a clonal population, I think both John and I were agreeing with the idea only in the trivial sense that a clonal lineage without variation subjected to environmental stress (natural selection) would be eliminated. Only if there was some variation in the population would there be any survivors. Actually, I can't think of any extant wild population where this is the case. Only in pure laboratory strains kept under very controlled conditions would you find completely homogenous populations.
OTOH, there is a distinct linkage between variation among individuals in a population and evolution. Remember: selection operates at the level of the individual, evolution at the level of the population/species/lineage. Selection in the sense of environmental factors CAN operate in the absence of variation, evolution cannot. Works for clones as well. (Note: this might be a bit simplistic: apparently Dr. Caporale's book, "Darwin in the Genome", makes a good argument for the operation of ns at the genome level. If so, she's one of the first to demonstrate an actual mechanism for gene selection - the absence of which has been the basis of my disagreement with the gene selectionists all along. Unfortunately, although I had an opportunity to purchase Dr. Caporale's book during my last bookstore raid, it came down to a choice between her book and Jared Diamond's new book on cultural evolution. Being the illiterate ecologist that I am, I bought Diamond's book. Seems I was a bit hasty. )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Syamsu, posted 01-19-2003 6:44 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Syamsu, posted 01-20-2003 6:13 AM Quetzal has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5667 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 40 of 90 (29632)
01-20-2003 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Quetzal
01-20-2003 5:08 AM


I'm sorry, you don't agree then with the usage of selection in the photosynthesis example? I think it would be better for discussion if people state their opinions with argument. It's possible I've mistaken your position, I certainly won't insist on what your position is if you tell me it is otherwise.
Are you saying that the use of Natural Selection on a clonal population is only valid in respect to another population which does have variation?
Do you agree that selection describes the relation of an organism to it's environment in regards to the event of it's reproduction?
edited to add: where you previously talked about variation not being a requirement for selection to apply
"I certainly agree with John inre natural selection not requiring variation (although I would probably drop the reproduction part simply because ns refers to survival, while "survival until reproduction" relates more to how we define fitness - but that's just a quibble), and evolution requiring variation (note the distinction)."
http://EvC Forum: Darwinist language -->EvC Forum: Darwinist language
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 01-20-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Quetzal, posted 01-20-2003 5:08 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Quetzal, posted 01-20-2003 8:46 AM Syamsu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5667 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 41 of 90 (29640)
01-20-2003 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by wj
01-19-2003 11:46 PM


I don't know what your talking about with species level. My concept of selection is I think already explained with the photosynthesis example. Any other uses of selection would be derived from that most basic simple form of selection.
You are wrong about Percipient. Even you should admit it is rather bizarre Percipient keeps insisting I am criticizing evolution, while actually I am criticizing selection. I've had this kind of misrepresentation before where everybody joined in, in misrepresenting. There is no limit to how deep this sort of restatement of another's position can sink, if it's not countered by a moderator.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by wj, posted 01-19-2003 11:46 PM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Brad McFall, posted 01-20-2003 5:44 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 47 by wj, posted 01-21-2003 1:50 AM Syamsu has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 42 of 90 (29642)
01-20-2003 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Syamsu
01-18-2003 9:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
The clone-example is merely to clearly illustrate that some definitions, such as that of differential reproductive success of variants, are fundamentally wrong. Situations where variation is much irrellevant in Natural Selection are common in Nature, such as with endangered species.
What??
Are you saying that endangered species are clones? What are you talking about?
Please give SPECIFIC, DETAILED examples of populations of clones, since you say they are so common, in nature. Also, please give examples only of clones which do not exist in environments, because if there is an environment, which includes other clones in the population, there will be NS.
quote:
As before the main application of Selection would be to describe the relation of an organism to it's environment in regards to the event of it's reproduction. For example: light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (positive selection). It would be the main conceptual tool in biology.
You are describing natural selection.
quote:
Yes I do tend to take "selfish" out of context, and so does everybody, which is why it is wrong to use an emotive word like that in a science theory.
The word "selfish" is NOT part of a scientific theory, as I have explained to you many months ago, yet you STILL continue to use it as an argument!
Dawkins used "selfish" in a popular press book.
"The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book, not a formal statment of any theory.
"The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book.
"The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book.
"The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book.
"The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book.
"The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book.
{Fixed a quote box -AM}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Syamsu, posted 01-18-2003 9:41 AM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by nator, posted 01-30-2003 10:55 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 43 of 90 (29644)
01-20-2003 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Syamsu
01-20-2003 2:41 AM


So, in other words, there is nobody you can refer Percy to who shares you view that the ToE needs to be rewritten, right?
Otherwise, you would just tell him who it is, correct?
Instead, you have begun attacking him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Syamsu, posted 01-20-2003 2:41 AM Syamsu has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5949 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 44 of 90 (29646)
01-20-2003 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Syamsu
01-20-2003 6:13 AM


Hi Syamasu,
quote:
I'm sorry, you don't agree then with the usage of selection in the photosynthesis example? I think it would be better for discussion if people state their opinions with argument. It's possible I've mistaken your position, I certainly won't insist on what your position is if you tell me it is otherwise.
Actually, I'm not agreeing OR disagreeing with the photosynthesis example, because I don't remember (I've been out of contact for a month) what the example was. Would you mind stating it again or perhaps noting which post # it was? Then we can talk about whether or not I concur. Sorry for the faulty memory...
quote:
Are you saying that the use of Natural Selection on a clonal population is only valid in respect to another population which does have variation?
Nope. NS can operate on a clonal population without variation. Evolution, on the other hand, cannot operate without variation. Let me explain: theoretically you could have a homogenous population of clones - call 'em type AA for the sake of argument - quite happily reproducing AA's ad infinitum as long as the environment is conducive to the survival and reproduction of type AA's. Even if some variation arises through mutation, it may not be viable. If something in the environment changes, it is quite possible that the environment will no longer support AA's. If this happens, natural selection wipes out all the AA's and the population goes extinct. This is what I meant when I talked about NS operating on a clonal population. If no environmental factor changes, natural selection doesn't happen. Nor does evolution. If something changes, natural selection takes its course. If, on the other hand, the change occurs while there is still some mutant - an AB, for instance - in the population, the mutant MIGHT survive. In which case, you now have a clonal population happily reproducing AB's, but the AA's are long gone. In a nutshell, it can be said in this case that the original AA population has evolved into an AB population.
Edited to add: I want to emphasize that the above is an entirely theoreticali] construct - a thought experiment if you will. I can't think of any actual population outside a lab where this could possibly occur. Every "wild" population that I'm aware of - whether clonal or not - contains some degree of variants.
Edited again to add: Now that I read the above over, I realize that even in the theoretical case noted above, natural selection (in the form of stabilizing selection) is what would eliminate the non-viable AB mutant in the first example. The only way you could postulate the absence of natural selection in a clonal population would be if each clone perfectly reproduced itself with no errors. I guess you just can't get away from NS in one form or another.
quote:
Do you agree that selection describes the relation of an organism to it's environment in regards to the event of it's reproduction?
Not entirely. The relation of an organism to its environment is better described through the concept of marginal fitness. Selection describes the action of environmental factors (which includes everything from climate to symbionts to competitors, etc) on the individual organism. Natural selection, at least as I understand the concept, corresponds to the action of these factors, rather than a relationship as you noted. The results of this action may have an implication for the chances of reproduction, reproductive efficiency, survival, food collection, etc etc, all of which are bound up in the concept of fitness.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-20-2003]
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-20-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Syamsu, posted 01-20-2003 6:13 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Syamsu, posted 01-21-2003 1:58 AM Quetzal has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22605
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 45 of 90 (29652)
01-20-2003 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Syamsu
01-20-2003 2:41 AM


Feel free to invite the other moderators to take a look. Their emails are Adminaquility and Adminnemooseus.
I must say your reaction seems a bit weird. I said I didn't understand your position, yet when I made my best attempt to describe what I thought you were saying you accused me of lying. If I thought I understood your position I wouldn't be asking for clarification.
I *do* think you are incorrect to view NS separately from evolution. As I said earlier, Darwin's definition of evolution in The Origin of Species was "descent with modification through natural selection." And your proposal to replace NS with a General Theory of Reproduction just leaves me dumfounded.
It is that you have gone on so long in this vein without either modifying your position or improving your presentation of it that led me to become curious if there are others who share your perspective from whom I might gain a better understanding.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Syamsu, posted 01-20-2003 2:41 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Syamsu, posted 01-21-2003 3:40 AM Percy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024