Falsification theory of Natural Selection

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:

I wasn't discussing evolution actually, you just assumed I was.

---

You have been (with me at least) discussing Natural Selection.By definition that is a topic strongly correlated to evolution.I think I see your problem now.Natural Selection is not a concept aimed at describing organisms,
populations or biological systems.Natural Selection is a concept aimed at explaining how evolution
could happen.By removing variation, you are removing the selectability from
the equation and are left with nature.I agree that the reproductive cycle is a major part of any
organisms existence. To say that an organism is 'designed to
reproduce' is objectionable to me on philosophical grounds
('design' part
way of looking at organisms.But NOT the only meaningful way. If I observe a lion pride
hunting, I cannot directly relate any of the behaviour to
reproduction ... except by considering that if they do not
eat, they will die and therefore be unable to reproduce.OVERALL the problem you have with natural selection is that you
are thinking of it as a general concept for the description
of organisms. IT IS NOT!! The sole purpose of NS as a concept
is to explain how evolution could be driven over time.Check your intent, and if it does not match the intent of ToE and
NS, then we have been debating different issue needlessly because
you have misunderstood the nature of the concept of NS. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
<b>
As before, "naked" strands of DNA, without a cell, put on a laboratory dish, will "magically" reproduce themselves. It is no good to describe reproduction as some incedental happenstance which happens when an organism lives "long" enough, when you realise the organism is much based on these reproducing molecules. It's been proved also that at the molecular level, the assembly of a copy is something the DNA does, and not something it's environment does to the DNA.
</b>[/QUOTE]That's exactly why natural selection is required by ToE.NS is not about an organism, its about a population.How would you describe a population, and the way it changes over
time ?In the above, yes DNA (or something similar, as I beleive DNA alone
won't just reproduce the way you suggest) replicates. That is not
reproduction.Reproduction only makes sense at the level of the organism, the
chemical replication of DNA is required for that, but isn't the
reproductive act ... even in single celled organism.A whole new cell is divided off, not just a copy of the DNA
from the cell nucleus.And, if copying were all that went on, species would not change
over time (even YEC's accept speciation so it does happen).It is not interaction between the DNA and the environment that
is selectable, it is between the organism and its environment.
http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Smilies/wink.gif[/IMG]-->

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Generally the reproductioncycle covers everything in an organism's life. Creationists like Paley knew this in talking about organisms being designed for reproduction, and I can't believe that science has become less knowledgeable about single organisms since 150 years ago!!! Nothing of organisms makes sense except in the light of it's reproduction, it's what pulls all the knowledge about the organism together.

---

Not everything that an organism does is directly motivated by
the need to reproduce, though. Some behaviours increase the
likelihood of being able to reproduce, but are not directy targetted
at reproduction ... these bahaviours are largely concerned with
survival. Another valid way at looking at organisms (figuratively
again) is to say they are designed for survival. Body mechanism
exits which allow some organisms to tolerate a wide range of
climatic conditions for example, or to survive on limited food
and/or water, etc.You can focus all of the attention of reproduction, but that
would lead to as many value judgements and biases as basing on
any other one factor.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

You are confusing Natural Selection theory with evolution theory.

---

I'm afraid you are the one who is confused.Natural selection is a mechanism which is proposed as the major
driving force behind evolution.Evolution is WHAT happens to populations over time.Natural Selection is HOW evolution happens.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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),

---

Why do you assume statis ?Do you or any of your friends have children who are identicle to them ?In the absence of variation there is no Natural Selection. So under
your assumptions natural selection does not exists ... but only
because you have put forward a 'system' in which there can be
no natural selection.Natural selection is NOT simply whether or not an individual
reproduces ... check some text books, or do some on-line searching.I know you paid someone to answer a question (you said so), please
post the exact question, and the exact wording of the response
in case you have mis-stated your question or mistaken the
answer ... maybe you haven't, but that's always a possibility.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

No ... the individual is not the unit of selection in the sense
that you are using that phrase.Natural selection is not simply to breed or not to breed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

It's not true.The idea of natural selection is based upon attempting to explain
observed variation in the Gallapogos islands.'Hmm, look at all these finches ... they're nothing like
mainland finches, and some have woodpecker beaks, some have
nut cracking beaks ... how could that have happened I wonder ?'It has NOTHING to do with atheism ... I'm pretty sure Darwin
wasn't an atheist and he put forward the ideas.What you seem to be saying is that we should throw out natural
selection because, to some, it challenges the view that God
created all life. That's hardly scientific is it ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

That said, you could also make atheist argument for the simple version of Natural Selection theory focused on how organisms reproduce. Then you would have to ask questions like, why did God not create watches for Adam and Eve? Why does God only design things, which are apparently designed to reproduce, and not design things, that are apparently designed to tell the time for instance.

---

Ask this instead ... if God created all life as is, why would
he create it so that it dies thus necessitating reproduction ?

The standard definition of Natural Selection is not just about reproducing or not reproducing, but reproducing or not reproducing is the essence of Natural Selection, even in the standard definition.I only paid for the answer about if Natural Selection neccistates competition or not, not for the definition of Natural Selection as a whole. The answer (from the same person) was no, then yes, then a tentative no, so no overall. After that some other poster submitted a mathematical formula of Natural Selection that required competition, and when confonted he cut out the competition parts from the formula.It's pretty clear to me now that Darwinists will be forced to clean up their conceptual mess, once a general theory of reproduction is accepted. The general theory of reproduction basicly just describes how organims reproduce, and evolution would show up as a subset to that general theory of reproduction. I guess you are not agreed, but many times it seems you don't agree with anything I say, just for the sake of disagreeing.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Ask this instead ... if God created all life as is, why would
he create it so that it dies thus necessitating reproduction ?

​

---

Why did He want to make the sky blue? Or why did He want water and sunlight an essential source for the planet to continue on?Because He wanted to do this and saw it was good.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
The standard definition of Natural Selection is not just about reproducing or not reproducing, but reproducing or not reproducing is the essence of Natural Selection, even in the standard definition.

---

I don't interret the essence of natural selection to be about
reproducing or not reproducing.I view differential reproductive success as the only meaningful
measure of natural selection.The definition which some of us agreed on earlier in this thread,
is that NS is about survival ultimately leading to an increased
chance of reproduction.I disagree on this descriptive point of NS with you. If I seem to
be hanging on to an accepted definition, it's because it seems
to best fit nature to me.Backtracking and basing a theory on a model of nature seems to
me a little cockeyed, when the simplifying assumptions you
have made are unrealistic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I only paid for the answer about if Natural Selection neccistates competition or not, not for the definition of Natural Selection as a whole. The answer (from the same person) was no, then yes, then a tentative no, so no overall. After that some other poster submitted a mathematical formula of Natural Selection that required competition, and when confonted he cut out the competition parts from the formula.

---

So where did you obtain your base definition of NS as being
to reproduce or not to reproduce ?Re: competition ... it is a possible factor, not an essential
ingredient.As with all eco-logical issues, they involve wide-ranging interactions
and cannot be straight forward.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

It's pretty clear to me now that Darwinists will be forced to clean up their conceptual mess, once a general theory of reproduction is accepted. The general theory of reproduction basicly just describes how organims reproduce, and evolution would show up as a subset to that general theory of reproduction.

---

If we JUST look at reproduction to describe organisms we will not
be addressing evolution at all.A general theory of reproduction is focussed on individuals,
NS is focussed on change in populations ... yes it must mention
individuals, but it is not explaining anything about the
individual, but about that individual's contribution to its
population.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I guess you are not agreed, but many times it seems you don't agree with anything I say, just for the sake of disagreeing.

---

I disagree because I do not believe that you are correct.I beleive that you have misunderstood the concept of NS,
which MAY indeed indicate a problem with literature on the
subject, or, more likely, on your current comprehension of
that literature.A general theory of reproduction would achieve ... what, in
your opinion ?What would be the initial AIM of creating such a theory ?You mentioned Newton earlier, is gravitational theory a good
way of describing apples in general ?That is what your suggestions amount to. You want NS
to describe organisms in general, when it's aim is to explain
how traits in a population change over time. Yes it discusses
individuals and their traits (as gravitational theory(GT) applied to
an apple discusses the mass etc. of the apple), but it is
aimed at describing one particular interaction (as GT is about
apples in motion).

- most populations are not significantly evolving (puntuated equilibrium)
- standard Natural Selection focuses on an essentially non-physical, comparitive relationship, with is conducive to many errors (*differential* reproductive success)
- it's very interesting to see how an organism reproduces, and standard Natural Selection draws away from this focus
- standard Natural Selection is not uniformly understood within science, and by lay peopleTo summarize the discussion, I think those are the 4 most significant scientific arguments to have a general theory of reproduction, which would restructure Natural Selection theory as a subset of it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

For the scientifically inclined, I stumbled across an interesting article showing how the survival strategy of a particular organism - the July Gold (Dedeckera eurekensis) - maximizes the survival potential of the individual plant to the detriment of the species as a whole. Since the species's reproductive strategy is integral to this conundrum, I thought it might have some bearing on this discussion.A slight natural history digression to put things in context. Plants that are adapted to extremely dry environments, such as the Mojave Desert which can suffer decades-long periods of drought, often produce many seeds, which lie dormant until conditions - rainfall - are favorable for germination. The idea here (an r strategy) is that some of those multiple seeds will survive long enough to germinate and perpetuate the species (for example, the desert sunflower Helianthus niveus). Others adopt a strategy where individual plants shut down seed production and concentrate their resources on survival. The July Gold is an extreme example of the logical conclusion of this strategy. When hard times drag on, as they often do in the searing, dessicated rocky terrain where July Gold is found (Inyo Mountains, southern White Mountains, and the Last Chance Range of the northern Mojave), the selection premium is placed on longevity - not reproduction.In the case of July Gold, the longevity strategy - good for the individual, bad for the species - has been pushed by natural selection to being limited to a small number of long-lived but nearly sterile individuals. The surviving plants are individual winners in the game of natural selection, but their individual success has brought their species to the edge of extinction.Reference: Daniel L. Nickrent, Delbert Wiens 1989, Genetic Diversity in the Rare California Shrub Dedeckera eurekensis (Polygonaceae), Systematic Botany, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 245-253

What exactly are you attempting to describe with a general
theory of reproduction. I'm starting to think we may be at
cross-purposes.I still disagree with your interpretation of Natural Selection
though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
- most populations are not significantly evolving (puntuated equilibrium)

---

This is actually unknowable, and use of the term 'significantly'
places it firmly into the realms of subjectivity/value judgement.Natural selection is what happens when the environmental factors
relevant to the population in question change. This would
tend to suggest that populations throughout South America (for
example) are undergoing natural selection. To assess whether
evolution IS happening would require a detailed investigation
of the population's genetic make-up over several generations in
order to see if there is a shift in the allele frequencies
observed. If this is being done anywhere I would be interested to
know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

- standard Natural Selection focuses on an essentially non-physical, comparitive relationship, with is conducive to many errors (*differential* reproductive success)

---

Differential reproductive success is not the relationship upon
which natural selection is based. It is the measure by which
natural selection can be assessed.If we wish to determine the gravitational constant, we cannot
measure it directly. We can swing a pendulem and calculate
from that. It is a measure which allows us to assess.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

- it's very interesting to see how an organism reproduces, and standard Natural Selection draws away from this focus

---

Agreed. Natural selection does not such much draw focus away
from reproduction though, it just has little to do with
reproduction for similar reasons to above. The reproductive
success is a measure of natural selection in action, not
batural selection itself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

- standard Natural Selection is not uniformly understood within science, and by lay people

---

Most scientific theories are not uniformly understood by lay
people, I don't see that as a problem.Should someone wish to misuse a scientific theory, in a lay
arena, for their own ends it is the duty of those with scientific
knowledge of the field to attempt to explain this.I'm not entirely sure why you would say natural selection is not
uniformly understood in scientific communities though. From the
response during this thread I think you can see that while the
general terminology is slightly different, those of us who consider
ourselves scientifically trained, and with an interest in evolution
all DO have a common understanding of natural selection.Perhaps there would be some merit to providing a definitive monograph
on natural selection, but compounding the problem by embedding
it within a theory to which it has no direct relevence is a little
strange.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

To summarize the discussion, I think those are the 4 most significant scientific arguments to have a general theory of reproduction, which would restructure Natural Selection theory as a subset of it.

---

1) has no relevence to this discussion. Natural
selection is aimed at describing what happens when poplations
ARE evolving, and has no relevence when they are not except as a
predictor that change in the environment will promote evolution
via natural selection.2) natural selection does not focus on diff. reproductive success.
It is measured by differential reproductive success. The physical
process upon which natural selection is based in the very physical
interactions between an organism and it's environment. (With the
peppered moths, wing colour impacts the chances of being eaten
and so natural selection in that case is base upon the physical
predator-prey relationship).3) it IS very interesting to see how organisms reproduce, but that
is NOT what natural selection is for. It is not fundamentally
about reproduction and so cannot draw focus from it.4) understanding in the scientific community is uniform, the descriptions may not be though.If these are your only four reasons, then this is why I disagree
with you.The reason I originaly started debating you, is that it seemed to
me that you were suggesting that natural selection, as a concept,
was false. This is not the case.

For practical purposes, Natural Selection=differential reproductive success=false.Also I don't think evolution should be generally understood to occur from a change in environment, but should be understood to start from a new trait/mutation. It might be very handy for creatures that before lived in the dark, that they have a set of spare eyes which they can now use in the changed light environment, but it's improbable they would have any spare set of eyes for if the environment changed to light.regard,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Also I don't think evolution should be generally understood to occur from a change in environment, but should be understood to start from a new trait/mutation.

---

You can't have one without the other. The current ToE incorporates both ideas.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
For practical purposes, Natural Selection=differential reproductive success=false.

---

differential reproductive success is a MEASURE of natural selection,
not natural selection itself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Also I don't think evolution should be generally understood to occur from a change in environment, but should be understood to start from a new trait/mutation. It might be very handy for creatures that before lived in the dark, that they have a set of spare eyes which they can now use in the changed light environment, but it's improbable they would have any spare set of eyes for if the environment changed to light.

---

Without a change in environment there is no GUIDE to evolution.In your example above, should these dark-dwellers have eyes, but
their environment is dark, then there is no advantage to having
the eyes. No survival advantage one way or the other in fact.The distribution of creatures with and without spare eyes would,
therefore be based purely on the genetics of the trait (recessive,
dominant, co-dominant, what have you).BUT should the environment change, such that there is now light,
and those with eyes find it easier to locate prey(say), they would
have a distinct survival advantage, and thereby an increased
chance of reproducting more offspring. The shift in the trait
frequency over a number of generations would tend to illinate
those individuals without eyes (though the no eye trait may
persist depending on the nature of the gene/allele).Evolution is a mechanism that allows species to adapt to changes
in the environment (the stimulus) by making use of heritable
traits (the raw material).As John said ... evolution requires both.

In the typical evolution/natural selection scenario the environment is static, and then lots of mutations are selected in this static environment (some reproduce, many don't). That is a factor more probable to producing mutations that contribute to reproduction, then having mutations of organisms prepared to deal with future mutations (changes) in the environment.I know this is not so in the famed peppered moth example, but then are we supposed to believe that the blackness of moths didn't confer a contribution to reproduction prior to the trees turning black? I think not. What would this contribution be? I'm sure Darwinists can't tell me, eventhough they have done many studies on these moths.Once again you confirmed to me how useless it is to look at proportions in a population as Darwinists do, over looking at how things (like an eye, or black wingcolor) work in reproduction.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
In the typical evolution/natural selection scenario the environment is static, and then lots of mutations are selected in this static environment (some reproduce, many don't). That is a factor more probable to producing mutations that contribute to reproduction, then having mutations of organisms prepared to deal with future mutations (changes) in the environment.

---

Show me a reference to natural selection that does not include
the concept of a changing environment. That's what natural
selection is about.Sometimes this concept is hidden within the idea of two
populations geographically isolated for some time. BUT
assuming one population remains in the original environment
and the other moves elsewhere, we have an explicit environment
change ... the population has gone somewhere else where conditions
are different.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I know this is not so in the famed peppered moth example, but then are we supposed to believe that the blackness of moths didn't confer a contribution to reproduction prior to the trees turning black? I think not. What would this contribution be? I'm sure Darwinists can't tell me, eventhough they have done many studies on these moths.

---

Re-read the peppered moths example. Blackness IS stated as
contributing to reproductive success prior to trees turning
black. Black moths were more likely to be eaten, and therefore
produce less offspring for the next generation, as well as being
less evident in the current generation due to being eaten.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Once again you confirmed to me how useless it is to look at proportions in a population as Darwinists do, over looking at how things (like an eye, or black wingcolor) work in reproduction.

---

Once again you show that you do not understand natural selection
as put forward within ToE.How does an eye work in reproduction ?In what way does having an eye or not impact reproductive
capacity ?

Sorry, but this is just plainly ridiculous. Maybe you do know more about evolution theory then me, but that is irrellevant here. Your scenario of a changing environment is demonstrably improbable and relatively meaningless (because it doesn't neccessarily introduce a new trait), although it does occur, as explained before.So how did the blackness of moth work then, prior to the change in environment? Was it also a camouflage color?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu