Falsification theory of Natural Selection

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Dawkins is highly influential within biology, especially with new biologists. You can point a finger at single gaffs in other disciplines, but any reasonable comparison will show the scientific standards of Darwinism to be comparitevely low.

---

It's the express purpose of Dawkin's popular press writing to deal with people's *intuitions* that evolution and natural selection don't seem likely. That's why he writes popular press books. This has little if any direct bearing on the scientific research programs regarding natural selection.There are no "gaffs" on Dawkin's part that you brought up. Just informality in an informal medium.------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/html98/plag_051098.htmlThis is a newspaper story which gives an overview of the AIDS immunity/Black Plague thing...Stephen O'Brien is the researcher most linked with this idea.

quote:

---

So the minimal requirements for Natural Selection are just a single organism and it's environment, and not all the things you said

---

well, if you want to discuss evolution, you must talk about populations, becuase an individual doesn't evolve.It's the essence of natural *selection* that there be variability in a population for the environment to *select* on. It makes sense to "select from a population"; it makes no sense "select from an individual."------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky

Edited:Accidental repetition. See next post.

​

[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 06-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Guys, maybe Syamsu means that his points are that NS and evolution is currently misused, therefore he asks us about how we can separate the uses and abuses of evolution. He's so concerned about people equating evolution (a fact) with Social Darwinism (an evil (IMO) philosophy). How can we stop those people? I am sure we're on the same side.

---

Well, if that's the main issue, then the way to stop it is by clearing up the misunderstandings of what the theory says. Syamsu gives me the impression of holding on tenaciously to the misunderstandings, and then blaming the theory. Maybe Syamsu could comment on your interpretation, then briefly state what he thinks the problem is - the theory, or its interpretation. (I think I know his answer to that). Then briefly summarize the problems.This thread has gone in circles for ages, seems like a good time to pull back and summarize main points again.

​

[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 06-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I don't use examples such as China's abortion policy as the main evidence for the relationship of Darwinism to Social Darwinism. The main evidence is from personal experience, like I asked you. What thoughts come up after I think about the phrase "the races of man encroach on each other until some finally become extinct" for some hours. Or think about what it means to be born selfish.

---

Well, first you should realize that describing what is, is not the same as recommending what should be.Second, you should ask: are your personal reactions indicative that the theory is fundamentally flawed, or just that it is prone to misinterpretation? The first requires changes in the theory, the second requires only clarification.------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky

​

[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 06-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
You are wrong about Natural Selection essentially requiring variation, as I have argued. I suggest you read some of my posts! It's really no good having people walk into a discussion who don't read the thread, I fear I would have to start all over again explaining, as I experienced before.

---

Well, you don't get to redefine natural selection. NS occurs on a case by case basis (of course), in a population (of course). [QUOTE][b]
[...quote deleted]So you see, having the theory of Natural Selection focus on evolution, has detracted from describing how an organism reproduces, or fails to reproduce. [/QUOTE]That's a gross overgeneralization. How about this for a counter example: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~fjanzen/pdf/LHEvol.PDFThis is an entire college course dealing just in the things you say are being ignored. [QUOTE][B]
There are also Darwinist philosphers who argue that Darwinism provides an objective morality to us, [/QUOTE][/b]That's their problem, not biology's problem. [QUOTE][b]
and besides normal Darwinists countinuously talk in terms of what is good and bad, and who is better, selfish etc. I think it's more significant to point out the sloppiness in Darwinism in regards to the ideal of neutrality in science, then to mindlessly accept all of Darwinist science as neutral,[/QUOTE][/b]Well, some of it may be sloppiness, although often I've seen them just get misinterpreted. "good" and "bad", for example, can be fine terms - organisms can be better or worse along different measures.If you're saying that sometimes, some scientists should reconsider how they write, I agree whole-heartedly. If you're saying the theory itself is fundamentally non-value-neutral, I totally disagree. You need to show how the theory itself - as it has been explained to you, NOT as YOU have explained it - leads to any moral statements.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
As before, I don't really redefine Natural Selection. When Darwinists say that "the individual either reproduces or fails to reproduce, and therefore it is the unit of selection", then they are giving the same definition of Natural Selection as I have.

​

It's contradictory that you reference one article where Darwinists focus on how organisms reproduce, when at the same time you insist, without any argumentation, that Natural Selection should not be focused on how organisms reproduce.

---

I never intended to say that NS shouldn't address reproduction, and don't believe I have said that. In fact, I believe I've said the opposite. Whether individuals reproduce or not, and when and how, is a fundamental aspect of evolutionary theory. It's just not the only aspect. If all of life consisted of a single organism that produced one exact copy of itself, and then died, we'd have reproduction but not natural selection.

quote:

---

I could interpret your preference for Natural Selection to focus on evolution, in stead of simple reproduction, as not entirely value-neutral. You don't seem to have any scientific argument for it, and there are possible ideological motivations to have the theory focus on evolution. (evolution tends to deny creation by God to many people)

---

You could interpret it that way. Please, feel free; I don't agree, but neither do I care. Individuals may feel the way they do for a variety of reasons.But that does not make the theory itself non-value-neutral.What about my counter example that shows that there is indeed work that looks at the factors that affect reproduction, from the standpoint of natural selection? Any comments?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
On the face of it, the work you referenced deals mainly or only with evolutionary events, and consequently talks about environmental factors in respect to an organism, only if the factors have a differential reproductive effect on variants. This is not what I mean by describing how organisms reproduce. As before, this is like only describing the color of moths and how it relates to trees and birds in respect to it's reproduction, and then neglecting to describe every other trait the moth has.

---

Wait - you claimed that natural selction theory has led people to disregard environmental factors. I gave you work that looked at environmental factors. Now you say that because that work didn't look at *EVERY SINGLE FACTOR* it's somehow lacking? That's actually a question. Your previous sentence implies to me that unless science accounts for all relevant factors in every single case, it's lacking? This can't be what you're saying, is it? [b] [QUOTE] You are confusing Natural Selection theory with evolution theory. If we had life that made one copy and then died, which is more or less what the great majority of living beings do (assuming stasis), then we would still have Natural Selection. We would have units of selection which either reproduce or fail to reproduce, hence we would have Natural Selection.[/b][/QUOTE]Natural selection? What's the "selection" at work, then? It's environment, right? Including other indivicuals, competitors, predators, etc? Right? Aren't you arguing that we include these factors? Doesn't this necessarily mean that we need to look at more than a single individual?On the one hand you claim that science is neglecting environmental factors. Then you say that natural selection doesn't need to include competition or other individuals. Then you say we need only look at a single organism. Then you say we need to look at what affects that organism. We all tell you that that's what science is doing, and I've given you a link that overviews some examples. Then you say that's not what you're looking for because it doesn't look at everything, just some things.So, which is it - it seems you're saying we need to look at why an individual reproduces or not by looking at the relevant factors. I'm saying that's already what science does, but it also realizes that this occurs in a natural environment that includes other individuals, which are one of those factors.What's wrong with that? [b] [QUOTE] If it were true that the only reason the evolutionary version of Natural Selection is preferred is to support atheism, any scientific argument being absent, then the theory is not value-neutral.
[/b][/QUOTE]There is no "evolutionary version" of natural selection. There is natural selection, which has implictions for evolution, and is one of its primary mechanisms.[edited for spelling]

​

[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 06-28-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Sorry but evolution can work without a change in environment, obviously, and this is how it typically works.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

I thought you were constantly thumping the podium about puncuated equilibrium? A key idea of PE is that evolutionary change happens at intervals, and these "spurts" of evolution are brought on by environmental changes (or movements to new environments).------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky