Falsification theory of Natural Selection

I've moved this topic to the Evolution forum.--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-24-2002]

Where just "survival" is mentioned it's just a shorthand way of saying "survival to reproduce".Where just "reproduction" is mentioned, obviously survival is a necessary prerequisite for reproduction.Natural selection has been defined for you in several different ways, not because people are giving it different conflicting definitions, but simply as an aid to understanding. If someone doesn't understnad your explanation, you don't simply repeat it, you develop a different explanation. You seem to be taking the different explanations and nit-picking them apart for meaningless vocabulary differences while ignoring the information they provide.Nobody's claiming the definitions you've been provided are perfect and the best available, but I think they're pretty good, certainly sufficient for this discussion. I guess we'll just continue to try to help you understand what we're saying, but it's become a bit puzzling why you're having so much trouble with this.--Percy

Syamsu writes:

---

There is an important difference between describing organisms in terms of staying alive and describing organisms in terms of reproduction.

---

Yes, they're different things, and natural selection requires both. No matter what the particular wording anyone here has used in defining natural selection, no one intended to say that it only requires staying alive. That would make no sense. Nothing is being selected if there is no reproduction. Natural selection requires staying alive in order to reproduce. Wherever anyone just used the word "survival" in defining natural selection they meant "survival to reproduce." No one here is trying to tell you that natural selection just means survival.

---

I think the use of survival by early Darwinists explains their focus on the population as the unit of selection that Natural Selection acts on, since the populations can be said to survive continuously more or less, and individuals can't be said to survive continuously.

---

Just as you earlier confused Fisher with Darwinists, I think you may now be confusing Darwinists with population geneticists. Certainly Darwin applied natural selection at the individual level. This is from his 1844 essay:

Darwin writes:

---

Besides this natural means of selection, by which those individuals are preserved, whether in their egg, or larval, or mature state, which are best adapted to the place they fill in nature,...

---

--Percy

Syamsu writes to Quetzal:

---

I don't understand how you can in your first post say that selection denotes the action of the environment on the chances of reproduction, and then defend Peter saying that selection is the action of the environment on the chances of survival/staying alive.

---

Not everyone is going to define everything the same exact way. Peter puts a slightly different spin on things by viewing selection solely in terms of survival, then projecting it's impact upon evolution in terms of reproduction. This is from Peter's Message 24:

Peter writes:

---

Yes, organisms do die ... what I was trying to point out is that natural selection would still be seen with non-reproducing individuals in a population.

​

Those that suit the environment would survive, those that didn't would die ... THAT is natural selection whether they breed or not.

​

Natural selection only powers evolution if reproduction DOES occur.

​

Reproduction is the link between natural selection at the level of the individual and evolution at the level of the species.

---

While others of us might not define our terms in quite this way and so would explain things a little differently, overall it seems self-consistent and quite clear. There's no need to become hung up on minor definitional differences, especially when the meaning is pretty clear.--Percy

I agree, I don't see where the difficulty lies. Syamsu seems to want everyone to phrase the definition the same way. This isn't going to happen. Even if the word we were defining was "consensus" it wouldn't happen.Perhaps we could all agree to use the definition of Natural Selection that's in the glossary. Or a formal definition from some other source. I don't think most of us care how the definition is phrased, so long as the definition is correct.--Percy

Peter and Quetzal,Right, I think we're all pretty much on the same page. While everyone has their own favorite way of defining natural selection, there's widespread general agreement on what it is. When we see someone else's definition we probably say to ourselves, "Well, that's not how *I* would say it, but that's pretty much correct."So I suggest that Syamsu pick some formal definition from somewhere, either from the glossary here or from a textbook or from somewhere on the net, and then assuming it's a decent definition we can all tell Syamsu that we all agree with it and get on with meaningful discussion.I expect one of three things will happen: a) We'll never hear from Syamsu again; b) This proposal isn't acceptable to him because he's certain natural selection is invalid because nobody defines it the same way; c) he accepts the proposal, but after we resume discussion everytime we refer to natural selection in our own words instead of the words of the agreed upon definition he'll point this out as a source of disagreement and error, and we'll be drawn into the same rathole over and over again.--Percy

Syamsu writes:

---

The ability to survive does not neccesarily increase the probability of reproduction.

---

Sure it does, by simple logic. The longer an organism survives the more opportunities it will have to reproduce. Increased likelihood of survival means increased probability of reproduction.

---

Clearly you are being defensive, not even beginning to make arguments in favour of my position.

---

This is a debate. That means we argue for our positions and you argue for yours.

---

theory of reproduction=describing individuals in terms of the event of their reproduction

​

selection=for an individual to reproduce or not to reproduce

---

I think in the end you'd just end up with the principle of natural selection.

---

To put the focus on physical relationships the formulation of differential reproductive success should largely be discarded.

---

Since an organism's success in life is measured by the number of offspring produced, differential reproductive comparisons are the obvious way to measure success. For example, say in successive years the cheetah/zebra populations on an African preserve were 100/10,000, 90/11,000, 80/12,000, then the zebras are outcompeting the cheetahs. Zoologists can analyze such population changes, taking into account fecundity, mortality rates and hosts of other factors in great numerical detail.

---

In the chapter on evolution in the textbook of the teacher Scopes of the famous monkey trial, it reads that the highest race are the Caucasians represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and the USA. In other words, all the would be do-gooders on the evolution side were advancing the right of a government to teach racist slop, and have children confirm that racist slop on any test on the subject.

---

It sounds like your objection to evolution is emotionally based upon historical interpretations rather than upon an assessment of the current state of the theory.--Percy

Syamsu writes:

---

Your idea of a good debate is much like that of a defense lawyer in a trial.

---

There's a set of Forum Guidelines that prevent defense lawyer tactics. Suggestions for improvements are welcome.

---

I would be very surprised if such a debate ever leads to mutual understanding.

---

Well, improved mutual understanding is the goal. If you have suggestions for how better to achieve that then you can send me email at admin@ or post ideas to the suggestions forum.If you're looking for help developing your ideas then you're certainly getting it, but I don't think that's what you're looking for. You seem more to be looking for validation of and agreement with your ideas rather than criticisms of them. Instead of accepting the feedback and using it to improve your ideas you simply keep arguing that natural selection as currenly defined is *too* wrong and why don't we just admit it and give you a pat on the back for pointing it out.

---

Specially since you are an administrator, I wish you would be more enlightened then that.

---

I play two roles here, and unless I sign off as "EvC Forum Administrator" then I'm just another debater.Much of the feedback you've gotten expresses a belief that you don't yet understand what you're criticizing. Your review of one of Dawkin's books over at Amazon reflects the same misunderstanding, and this reflects another:

---

Zebra's are just one of many environmental factors to Cheetahs, and should "obviously" only be mentioned in so far as they influence the reproduction of the Cheetah. 80/25, 90/30, 120/35. Where the first is the number of cheetahs, and the second is the average temperature over some time. Why Darwinists put exclusive focus on the reproductive rate of another organism like Zebra's, in stead of comparing with something like the weather, is unexplained to me.

---

I was providing an example in support of the "differential reproduction" version of the natural selection definitions, not enumerating the the possible causes of the differential success. Your unfamiliarity with evolutionary theory is showing when you say you think scientists ignore climatic factors.

---

The ideal of neutrality in science is emotionally based,...

---

Is English a second language for you? Sometimes your vocabulary is a bit unusual.I think you're actually referring to objectivity in science, the question of how subjective and emotional creatures like humans can hope to arrive at objective assessments. While complete objectivity is only an ideal, science is able to achieve objectivity because of it's consensual nature that involves peer review and replication as key facets of the scientific process. Scientists must reveal their ideas to other scientists for review and criticism and describe their methods in sufficient detail that other scientists may replicate them. A new idea gradually becomes accepted within the scientific community as this process unfolds, if it is correct.

---

...so in that sense I guess you're right to say that my argument is emotionally based.

---

The reason I said your argument was emotionally based is because you made emotional (and factually questionable) statements blaming a man who died over a century ago for the current state of evolutionary theory, as if no one had done anything in the interim, and your concomitant confusion of moral issues surrounding the use or misuse of scientific theories for political or other purposes with the science itself.

---

The standards of formalcy in Darwinism are as low now, as they were in the beginning(Dawkins influential selfish gene version of Natural Selection comes to mind).

---

The Selfish Gene is secondary literature. I suggest you examine some of the primary literature, ie, scientific papers. Subscribe to Science or Nature for a year and see if at the end of that time you still think evolution is insufficiently formalized. (By the way, formalcy is not a word.)--Percy

Syamsu writes:

---

I'm sorry but you provide no argument,...

---

If you're thinking of where I said you only demonstrate your ignorance when you say Darwinists don't take into account climatic factors, I didn't have to provide any argument. First, this is self evidently wrong on its face. You hear evolution explained in terms of environmental factors all the time. If it gets colder, mammals evolve thicker coats. If it gets dryer, finches on the Galapagos evolve smaller beaks to better take advantage of smaller seeds. If water becomes very shallow, some fish begin swimming sideways and evolve the position of their eyes to the top side (flatfish). And the most famous environmental example of all, moths of the industrial evolution in Great Britain evolved darker coloration to better blend with tree trunks that gradually became increasingly soot-covered.Second, Mark had already addressed this point before me in Message 59.Third, half the messages to you have mentioned environmental factors.Fourth, you already demonstrated a knowledge that the environment is a key factor. For example, you wrote in Message 1 of this thread, "So the physical relationship that Natural Selection always describes is the relationship of a variant to it's environment..." There is obviously no need to tell someone something they already know.What's hard to figure is why you suddenly stopped knowing it.

---

I think the word neutrality is more clear in saying that science should not contain value judgments...

---

Making value judgments is a key part of the scientific process. Was the data produced in an acceptable manner? Which theory better explains the data? Neutrality means not making any choices, and making choices is what scientists do all the time.I think you're trying to say something about hidden biases affecting judgment, and this is why I explained in my previous note about the nature of science, how it is a group enterprise where the currently accepted view is chosen through consensus, greatly diluting the effect of individual biases.

---

...in respect to formalcy (i think people would know what I mean by that word)...

---

Sure we do, we just didn't know we had another "sly Cal" on our hands. --Percy

Syamsu writes:

---

If you want to deny my point then you would have to answer like, "there is no prejudicial focus on the variant that is differentiated with as an environmental factor, because". You mentioned Zebra's and Cheetahs in particular, you didn't mention any environmental factor in particular.

---

Sure I did. The zebra is a factor in the cheetah's environment, and vice-versa. What I didn't mention was climatic factors, and that was your original complaint in Message 60: "Why Darwinists put exclusive focus on the reproductive rate of another organism like Zebra's, instead of comparing with something like the weather, is unexplained to me."Then you included environmental factors in general in Message 63: "Darwinists ignore the weather and other environmental factors simply by not mentioning them."Except that they do mention them. Prolifically, as everyone has pointed out to you, including yourself in earlier messages.

---

Except if any creationist-Darwinist would reply to what I argue then I think this discussion is finished.

---

Ah, yes, that all too familiar Creationist tactic: declare that no one has answered your challenges and end the discussion.--Percy

Syamsu writes:

---

I argue that the setup of differential reproductive success, puts prejudicial focus on the variant that is differentiated with as an environmental factor. This means you will tend to put focus on the Zebra as an environmental factor to the cheetah, and the other way round. There is no differential reproductive success of zebra's and weather, since weather does not reproduce.

---

Some factors play two roles. The zebra is both an organism and an environmental factor, as is the cheetah. Each places selection pressures on the other. Non-living environmental factors such as climate only exert selection pressures and so only play one role.I also think Quetzal's question is a good one. I'm pretty sure I don't have a very good understanding of your unique perspective.

---

I meant to say that you mentioned no environmental factor outside of the variants(Zebra's and Cheetah's) you were differentiating. I was wrong to say you didn't mention any environmental factors, but still I said it right a couple of times before.

---

I said it wrong at least once, too. No problem.--Percy

Syamsu writes:

---

...Darwin was a sort of Lamarckian.

---

Calling Darwin a Lamarckian is like calling Castro a capitalist. Both are true, but only to the most minimal of extents. As the Dawkins essay you provided correctly explains, Darwin resorted to a kind of personalized style of Lamarckism because of the inability of the only theory of inheritance extant at the time, namely blended inheritance, to explain how new traits were maintained and strengthened rather than diluted. Also, natural selection by itself couldn't explain how new traits could emerge, since the mechanism of mutation was unknown.While some parts of Darwin's perspective included Lamarckian attributes, calling him a Lamarckian is inaccurate and misleading. Certainly Lamarck himself would have rejected Darwin as a fellow Lamarckian. And classifying Darwin with Lamarckians would also be historically confusing, since when Darwin's ideas were first publicly introduced, descent with modification and natural selection was well understood to be a challenge to, not a variant of, Lamarckism.Pointing to the Lamarckian aspects of Darwin's views is certainly valid, but it is a mistake to call him any sort of Lamarckian because it implies he advocated what he actually only accepted with extreme reluctance.

---

Needless to say that all of what Dawkins writes is a politically contrived Darwinist version of history...

---

Looks pretty neutral to me.

---

The rest of your post completely ignores the issue of why Mendel's theory was denied up to 72 years.

---

I have the same question as Quetzal. What's this got to do with the modern synthetic theory of evolution? If evolution is wrong then it's wrong independent of how Mendel was treated. I can understand caring about Mendel from a sense of justice, but for this discussion it's water under the bridge long ago.--Percy

The moths of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain were drawing upon variability already inherent in the species' genome. Selection pressures for this moth are apparently influenced by the amount of soot in the environment. Dark moths already existed in moth populations prior to the Industrial Revolution, they were simply less common. The Industrial Revolution made darker coloration a desireable trait, and so the proportion of dark moths in the population increased. Comtemporary mutations are not thought to have been a factor.The source of variability in the moth genome *is* mutation, but it is mutation that occurred in the species in the past and especially in species ancestral to the present moth species.When a mutation occurs it may or may not be immediately expressed physically in the organism. Given that large portions of genomes have no purpose that we can discern at this time, the effect of most mutations at the time they occur is nothing. But some future modification to the genome can cause a mutation to be expressed.--Percy