Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,573 Year: 4,830/9,624 Month: 178/427 Week: 91/85 Day: 8/20 Hour: 1/2


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 46 of 90 (29694)
01-20-2003 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Syamsu
01-20-2003 6:58 AM


There is a limit to the depth. The neat thing about experienceing C/E boards is that both sides have seemed to"update" in sync. It may be that we have come to an end. I can see lots of room to discuss some "species level" thing but I NEVER THOUGHT this was something to do when RICHARD BOYD offered this to me as a possibility there was so much alpha taxonomy that needed to be done rather than speuclate but I am beginning to understand that Gould's insistence on it is tied to larger unread but available since mid 70s stuff of Darwin's he left out. But as soon as one is into this one could EASILY accept my claim that PASCAL enables one to reintroduce the structuralist history back to Aristotle and Plato that Gould is recalling in part when calling on thinking of Darwin as having *actually* thought on the species level. You do seem to "get" the idea that the organism is VERY important. That is also a point of Gould's.
But by introducing Pascal's Double in Wolfram's sophistication I would never EVEN IN REVERSE have to accept Gould
s question as to if FISHER/WRIGHT SMITH/KAUFMANN is merely two different theologies rescripted. They are not and that indeed is the message of creation scienc when not ICR's itself. Gould takes more ground than he needs to try to geological horizon out for size.
So far I did not say if the organism or the species is more important heiracrhically. We all have struggled to understand your organicism which being ONLY that could be BARAMINC as well and this P may have found harder to swallow than me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Syamsu, posted 01-20-2003 6:58 AM Syamsu has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 90 (29721)
01-21-2003 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Syamsu
01-20-2003 6:58 AM


Syamsu
Where is this post on photosynthesis which explains your meaning of selection and evolution?
And I think you better come to grips with the fact that, if everyone else finds it difficult to understand the message that you are putting across, then the problem may lie with the way you are trying to put it across rather than stooping to insults and aspersions on everyone else's honesty.
[This message has been edited by wj, 01-21-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Syamsu, posted 01-20-2003 6:58 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Syamsu, posted 01-21-2003 2:30 AM wj has not replied
 Message 56 by peter borger, posted 01-21-2003 6:50 PM wj has replied

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


Message 48 of 90 (29722)
01-21-2003 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Quetzal
01-20-2003 8:46 AM


For example: light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (positive selection).
As shown selection basically describes the relation of an organism to it's environment, in regards to the event of it's reproduction.
I'm not sure how or if, you are invalidating this usage with your reference to marginal fitness. In any case you previously said that selection is just about surviving or not surviving. It is hard for me to understand if that is true, then why selection is not commonly defined that way.
NS is now commonly defined as differential reproductive success of variants. This formulation is inapplicable where variation is not relevant, such as with endangered species, or with the photosynthesis example.
It also, quite rightly IMO, doesn't talk about survival at all as you do. Survival selection, and reproduction selection are two distinct theories, where survival selection strictly speaking, is inapplicabe to evolution theory, except if we begin to talk about evolution within the lifespan of an individual.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Quetzal, posted 01-20-2003 8:46 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Quetzal, posted 01-21-2003 5:24 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 49 of 90 (29725)
01-21-2003 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by wj
01-21-2003 1:50 AM


The photosynthesis example has been posted in this thread, which you apparently don't read to well.
You are making an argument from majority which is a logical fallacy. It doesn't make it more true if many people say it is true. You also ignore the magic working of groupthink.
On account of the groupthink in this thread, John in another thread is now redefining variation to mean that if you have just one sort then you already have variation.
http://EvC Forum: Darwinist language -->EvC Forum: Darwinist language
Things are getting out of hand...
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by wj, posted 01-21-2003 1:50 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Weyland, posted 01-21-2003 6:21 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 50 of 90 (29732)
01-21-2003 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Percy
01-20-2003 9:21 AM


I accused you of lying when you did not take back your position after I made numerous references to people who, while not wholly sharing my position, hold opinions on things similar as my argument. Things which you supposedly don't understand, and supposedly want to understand.
The first time you asked it, I already said that it's wholly my own opinion. Why then did you continue to ask this question several more times, if I already told you all you wanted to know? Why didn't you talk about the arguments I refferred you too at all, if you really wanted to know? Why do you insist on using the word evolution for my argument while I use the word selection?
Below some arguments about the requirement for variation:
http://EvC Forum: Minimum requirements for applying Natural Selection -->EvC Forum: Minimum requirements for applying Natural Selection
John:
"Not really. You are bleeding into the ToE aspects. Natural selection is "If an individual survives long enough it reproduces, if it doesn't survive long enough it does not reproduce." That's it, really. There is no need for variants at all. You could have clones-- no variation at all-- and this would still apply. This kind of variant-less population is what triggered the Irish potatoe famine. Most of the potatoes grown in the affected areas were so closely related that once a disease -- an agent of natural selection-- took hold it ran wild."
Quetzal:
"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)."
I can't be bothered to find a reference for the survival of the fittest argument, but it goes like this.
Survival of the fittest is a tautology/misleading. It's also conducive to Social Darwinism. Darwin didn't invent it but the Social Darwinist Herbert Spencer did. Note: I don't actually support this argument myself.
As far as I can tell you have difficulty with the word "also"
in above argument.
There are actually developments in the discussion, although I still have to repeat a lot to the same person many times, and I do actually come up with different examples to make it more clear sometimes. However it's not possible to convince those who are unwilling. But as before, there would be no problem to convince an "innocent" student of my formulation. The misunderstanding is between your formulation and mine, but my formulation on it's own would not be misunderstood.
I don't understand why you reference a 150 year old prosastyle popular press book. The merit of a definition is not about authority, it is about which definition is better for describing Nature.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 01-20-2003 9:21 AM Percy has not replied

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


Message 51 of 90 (29735)
01-21-2003 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Syamsu
01-21-2003 1:58 AM


Hi Syamasu,
quote:
For example: light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (positive selection).
I have to disagree with this statement. Photosynthesis has no direct relationship to either selection or reproduction. Photosynthesis is simply the use of light energy by a plant to synthesize organic molecules. It's the light-powered chemical factory of the plant. The molecules produced are then used to create the structures necessary for reproduction for instance, like pollen, reproductive organs, seeds, etc, as well as all the other necessities for growth and life. Heterotrophs, on the other hand, use the already stored energy produced by plants through photosynthesis to power their own systems.
Secondly, "positive selection", by which I assume you mean directional selection, refers to the elimination of variants at one or the other end of the mean frequency distribution in a population, and has nothing whatsoever to do with an individual organism's survival OR reproduction (unless, in the trivial sense, we refer to one of the eliminated individuals).
quote:
I'm not sure how or if, you are invalidating this usage with your reference to marginal fitness. In any case you previously said that selection is just about surviving or not surviving. It is hard for me to understand if that is true, then why selection is not commonly defined that way.
Actually, I think selection IS commonly defined this way. Selection relates to the pressures effecting the survival of an individual. Marginal fitness refers to the relationship between an organism and its environment.
quote:
NS is now commonly defined as differential reproductive success of variants. This formulation is inapplicable where variation is not relevant, such as with endangered species, or with the photosynthesis example.
I don't agree - natural selection IS NOT defined as "differential reproductive success of variants". Evolution might be described this way (although it would be an odd way of putting it), not selection itself. But again, evolution is only applicable to populations, not individuals.
As to endangered species - organisms are endangered primarily because of the action of natural selection. "Endangered" classification is a result of changes in the environment (selection pressures) in which the population lives.
quote:
It also, quite rightly IMO, doesn't talk about survival at all as you do. Survival selection, and reproduction selection are two distinct theories, where survival selection strictly speaking, is inapplicabe to evolution theory, except if we begin to talk about evolution within the lifespan of an individual.
And herein lies the rub. Of course we're not going to talk about evolution within the lifespan of an individual - individuals don't evolve. Survival and reproduction are two faces of the same fitness coin: differential mortality and differential fecundity. Certain phenotypes are better able to survive AND/OR certain phenotypes contribute disproportionately to subsequent generations. This is the foundation of population genetics, which in turn is the foundation of evolutionary theory. As gene frequencies in a population change over generations through the action of natural selection (the elimination of negative variants OR promotion of positive variants) - whether through differential survival or differential fecundity - the population is said to be evolving. Stasis - where distribution frequencies remain fairly constant within a population (or better said, vary around a mean) - is the result of stabilizing selection which has the net effect of preventing evolution from occurring by eliminating the variants from both ends of the mean!
Out of curiosity, how does your "general theory of reproduction" account for evolutionary stasis?
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-21-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Syamsu, posted 01-21-2003 1:58 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Syamsu, posted 01-21-2003 9:38 AM Quetzal has not replied

Weyland
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 90 (29740)
01-21-2003 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Syamsu
01-21-2003 2:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

You are making an argument from majority which is a logical fallacy. It doesn't make it more true if many people say it is true. You also ignore the magic working of groupthink.

No, it would be an 'argument from majority' if he said 'Many people here don't understand your theory, so it must be wrong'
What he said was 'Many people don't understand your theory, so rather than assume they are all incompetant or mendacious, consider that your explanations are less clear than you think they are'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Syamsu, posted 01-21-2003 2:30 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Syamsu, posted 01-21-2003 12:24 PM Weyland has not replied

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


Message 53 of 90 (29757)
01-21-2003 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Quetzal
01-21-2003 5:24 AM


Light in relation to photosynthesis does contribute to reproduction, as can be experimently established by taking away the light. We then know that if we want to save some plant from extinction, that it needs light to reproduce. I think it's pretty important to keep touch with practical biology.
By positive selection I merely mean a relation to the environment which contributes to reproduction, as there are other relations which hinder reproduction which is then called negative selection.
Again, I doubt if selection is generally understood as you say, since for example, the glossary of this site, and the usenet talk.origins faq have a different definition.
The "better then" part, is not absolutely neccessary. What is absolutely neccessary for origin of new species is mutation and reproduction, the rest is happenstance.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Quetzal, posted 01-21-2003 5:24 AM Quetzal has not replied

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


Message 54 of 90 (29777)
01-21-2003 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Weyland
01-21-2003 6:21 AM


It is still an argument from majority.
According to Quetzal and John, Natural Selection is already pretty much defined as I want it to be, and commonly understood. Quetzal defines it essentially as survival or no survival, John as survival until reproduction, or no survival until reproduction, I define it as reproduction or no reproduction. Why not discuss it with them if you don't understand it?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Weyland, posted 01-21-2003 6:21 AM Weyland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 01-21-2003 1:27 PM Syamsu has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 55 of 90 (29784)
01-21-2003 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Syamsu
01-21-2003 12:24 PM


Quetzal defines it essentially as survival or no survival, John as survival until reproduction, or no survival until reproduction, I define it as reproduction or no reproduction.
This is a pretty clear and succinct summary. There's more than one way to say the same thing, and I think you may have missed something in Quetzal's perspective because it definitely makes a difference whether an organism is "deselected" before or after it's had a chance to reproduce, but this all seems pretty much the same to me.
Perhaps the disagreement is only apparent, not real, brought on by slightly different perspectives. How you view the process of evolution could be the significant factor. For example, you could view evolution like this, which would tend to make you describe selection as surviving to reproduce:
organisms => offspring => selection => remaining organisms
Or you could look at the same process just a little differently by starting the description at a different point like this, which might, possibly, cause a greater focus on reproduction, though I don't actually see it myself:
selection => remaining organisms => offspring => more selection
But it doesn't matter which part of the process you choose as your starting point because the process is circular. No matter what the starting point it is still the same process. And no matter what words you use to describe it, it is still the same process.
So unless the above is *not* the process we're talking about (give or take some quibbling about level of detail), this whole disagreement is about vocabulary.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Syamsu, posted 01-21-2003 12:24 PM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Quetzal, posted 01-22-2003 10:23 AM Percy has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7742 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 56 of 90 (29801)
01-21-2003 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by wj
01-21-2003 1:50 AM


Dear WJ,
This is what I encountered on another board:
http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000148.html
Background
"Most mammals possess a functional gene encoding the enzyme protein known as
L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GLO) which is required for synthesising ascorbic
acid. However, most primates (including man) and guinea pigs do not possess this
functional gene and must consume ascorbic acid (vitamin C) in their diet or they
will become sick (scurvy).
But primates (including man) do possess a gene which is very similar to the GLO
gene of other mammals, however it suffers from crippling mutations which render
it inoperative. Therefore it is termed a pseudogene.
"A small section of the GLO pseudogene sequence was recently compared from
human, chimpanzee, macaque and orangutan; all four pseudogenes were found to
share a common crippling single nucleotide deletion that would cause the
remainder of the protein to be translated in the wrong triplet reading frame
(Ohta and Nishikimi BBA 1472:408, 1999)."
Problems for "Intelligent Design"
"Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good." Genesis
1:31 NKJV
The example of human GLO pseudogene is explicable and predictable using the
theory of biological evolution. However it presents massive problems for
intelligent design adherents.
Why can most other mammals synthesise ascorbic acid when man has to get it
through his diet? If the intelligent designer knew how to make the GLO gene
properly, why not give one to man? What is intelligent about including a
susceptibility to scurvy in the human genome?
Why give man a faulty GLO gene? Wouldn't it be more "intelligent" to give him
nothing at all rather than some junk sequences which add to the genetic load?
In anticipation of some fundie argument that the mutation in the human GLO gene
is man's punishment from god after eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge,
why did god also punish other primates and guinea pigs?
Why does man share the identical deletion mutation in the GLO pseudogene with
other primates? Did the intelligent designer lose the blueprint when he got
around to making primates? Why the identical deletion when any old deletion
would probably do the job?
And this is only one example. There is much more evidence of genetic errors
shared by man and other primates and a pattern reflecting relative evolutionary
closeness between the primates, including man.
Intelligent Designer RIP"
PB: IF YOU USE MY EXAMPLES THAT I ALREADY EXPLAINED FROM A GUToB STANCE, PLEASE INCLUDE MY INFO TOO. LEAVING OUT DATA IS NO SCIENCE. SO, CARE TO DISCUSS THE GLO GENE IN DETAIL, AGAIN?
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by wj, posted 01-21-2003 1:50 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by wj, posted 01-21-2003 6:59 PM peter borger has replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 90 (29803)
01-21-2003 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by peter borger
01-21-2003 6:50 PM


Peter B
I DO want to discuss science, not lurid, unsupported speculation like your GUToB.
IIRC, you have previously made assertions about the presence of populations of persons who can synthesise ascorbic acid, but the evidence was never provided. Feel free to start a new thread and provide any corrections you think necessary to my little piece, including how your GUToB means that humans and other closely related primates can't synthesis ascorbic acid. Not enough creatons in the diet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by peter borger, posted 01-21-2003 6:50 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by peter borger, posted 01-21-2003 7:13 PM wj has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 58 of 90 (29805)
01-21-2003 7:09 PM


Syamsu has a number of active topics, and I guess things are migrating between them.
This topic seems to intended for the Nazi use/misuse of evolutionary theory (social Darwinism?).
I know it's not easy, but perhaps topic originator Syamsu could try to guide his various topics back more in line with their original intents.
Good luck,
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7742 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 59 of 90 (29807)
01-21-2003 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by wj
01-21-2003 6:59 PM


Dear WJ,
WJ: I DO want to discuss science, not lurid, unsupported speculation like your GUToB.
PB: Unsupported only for the blind/mute.
WJ: IIRC, you have previously made assertions about the presence of populations of persons who can synthesise ascorbic acid, but the evidence was never provided.
PB: Strawman. I invite you to discuss this topic again.
Feel free to start a new thread and provide any corrections you think necessary to my little piece, including how your GUToB means that humans and other closely related primates can't synthesis ascorbic acid. Not enough creatons in the diet?
PB: Another strawman. The NONRANDOM indel-mutaion is introduced through a mechanism described by Caporale in her book on Page 38. I do NOT have to use creatons. You, in another thread, even mailed that I wasn't serious about the creatons. But now, you take it as a strawman. Sad.
PB: Why didn't you post it to this board? Since I immediately rebut and obliterate it? Better show the public all scientific information, instead of a selection. You know what kind of science it is that deliberately leaves out data/explanation, don't you.
To spell it out for you: PS...O-science.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by wj, posted 01-21-2003 6:59 PM wj has not replied

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


Message 60 of 90 (29881)
01-22-2003 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
01-21-2003 1:27 PM


Percy,
I think you've hit the nail on the head. I would like to clarify a bit, however.
quote:
...I think you may have missed something in Quetzal's perspective because it definitely makes a difference whether an organism is "deselected" before or after it's had a chance to reproduce...
You are absolutely correct. I think part of the misunderstanding arises from my attempts to decouple the explanation of natural selection from its ultimate effect: evolution of a population or lineage. Syamasu began by arguing against natural selection - not evolution. I've been trying to show that natural selection is a mechanism or process that leads (along with drift) to changes in the frequency distribution of traits within a population (i.e., evolution). It can be understood both from the standpoint of differential mortality OR differential reproductive success/fecundity, or even both together. I think that's how we got side-tracked onto the clone bit. In any event, since evolution depends on inheritance, any organism that doesn't reproduce, no matter how well "adapted" to its environment, doesn't contribute to the evolution of its population. You can have the most amazing butterfly with the most perfect genome on the planet, but if it gets eaten before it reproduces, it's an evolutionary dead end - and hence isn't "fit" by the standards of evolutionary biology.
Syamasu's main problem with the idea seems to be that natural selection (in most of the details), is inherently a negative process: it weeds out rather than builds. For him, from what I've been able to discern, couching evolution in terms of reproduction removes the "negative" connotations and the "negative" implications (e.g., social darwinism). His "reproduction or no reproduction" construction isn't all that bad - it's basically the same thing everyone else is saying, just different wording. Unfortunately, he has taken it too far, and denies all of the messy bits: no inter- or intra-specific competition, etc, and he seems to have some difficulty understanding that the "environment" that effects an organism's chances of reproduction INCLUDES all the messy parts - including competitors. He also seems to have some problems separating primary, secondary, and tertiary causes (c.f., the light effects reproduction through photosynthesis bit).
I'm really not sure at this point what we can do to clear things up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 01-21-2003 1:27 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Syamsu, posted 01-23-2003 2:29 AM Quetzal has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024