Falsification theory of Natural Selection

I think evolution is already covered with reproduction and mutation. (descent with modification). To describe evolution you would need to look at if a mutant reproduces or not, and how the mutation functions in it's reproduction.I'm stunned you now ask me what selection has to do with the event of reproduction.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

What part of my three posts didn't you understand?

quote:

---

The author says among other things, that DeVries and the others you mentioned, were not much Darwinists, but more mutationists.

---

Where did the author say that? The people I mentioned were the guys that re-discovered AND PROMOTED Mendel's work. What are you talking about?

quote:

---

Darwin did believe in the heritability of acquired charactersitics, as is generally known. I remember in "the Descent of Man" he talks about handwriting being an acquired characteristic that is heritable.

---

Odd, I can't find a reference for that. In any event, that is manifestly NOT what the author is talking about in that essay. He's talking about lamarckian inheritance of acquired physical traits - like Mendel's pea plant traits - which is the antithesis of Darwinian natural selection. There is no way in the world that you can construe lamarckism from anything Darwin wrote.

quote:

---

The rest of your post completely ignores the issue of why Mendel's theory was denied up to 72 years. You present no explanation, and this person presents a reasonable explanation.

---

On the contrary, I provided several reasons. Re-read the posts. It is very obvious you have no concept of the history of science - and especially evolutionary science. You seem to be basing your entire view on a single article written by an avowed anti-Darwinian. Care to provide a few more references for your assertion?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:to Schraffinator:
Fisher's ridiculous accusations which you referenced, have been shown false numerous times.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[/B][/QUOTE]That's it?You didn't respond to anything else in my post! Do you concede the points then?Allison------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

I don't answer because your vague line of questioning only leads to fighting, and not to anything specific and substantial about the theory of Natural Selection.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The article provides references for all that you ask for. It's strange you now begin to talk about having authority on science history, when this obviously well-researched essay shows you to be wrong on several basic facts.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Actually, I'd say it's probably the other way around. No matter, this is a pointless conversation. Have a nice day.

I post this now just so that noone would actually believe what you say is factually true. http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/leghist/dawkins.htm"In Darwin's time the matter was more in doubt, and Darwin himself flirted with a personalised version of Lamarckism when his natural selection theory ran into a difficulty."A simple googlesearch on the words Lamarckism and Darwin gave above as the first result.Needless to say that all of what Dawkins writes is a politically contrived Darwinist version of history, as shown by the essay I referenced, but at least he has this fact straight, that Darwin was a sort of Lamarckian.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

​

[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 06-21-2002]

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I don't answer because your vague line of questioning only leads to fighting, and not to anything specific and substantial about the theory of Natural Selection.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

First of all, my questions are not vague. Second, I can't see how they lead to fighting. They are legitimate and quite germaine to the discussion. Besides, we aren't allowed to fight here, as this is a moderated discussion. We are supposed to argue, though, and that is what I am doing and you are avoiding. If you don't like being challenged to defend the claims you make, then I am not sure why you post to a debate board.Here are my questions and points from the previous message. Please address them unless you would like to concede:"Ever read any Mendel, and is it your opinion that his work adheres to current standards of presentation?"This is quite direct and pertains directly to your claim that Mendel wrote a professional and formalized piece. I want to know exactly what piece you are referring to, and if you would consider it similar in presentation and formality to modern scientific papers.You made the claim, and I challenged it. Either concede or defend your claim, or I will assume you are not able to answer and are avoiding responding."Let's not distract ourselves, though. Your original post listed several out of context quotes that Darwin supposedly made and then you criticized them because they might be "damaging".

​

I simply said that because the way science was reported back then hadn't been formalized yet into the peer reviewed journals we have now, his language was less formal. You will also find many references to God and His Creation in the Geologic books of the same time frame which you wouldn't see in the more formal, professional Geology journals today. Galileo wrote his science in the form of a series of dialogues, completely different to the way modern professional astronomical papers are written, too.

​

What's the big deal?"Again, here I challenge your claim that language Darwin supposedly used is "damaging" on it's face, even though you do not provide context for the quotes, nor will you substantively counter my claim that basically all science writing in those days was less formal than it is today."Nobody denied it. Nobody knew it existed because of it's obscure publication."The above is in reference to your claim that Mendel's work was denied by Darwinists. I explained that nobody could deny that which they didn't know existed. If you didn't think that this point was important to this debate, then why did you bring is up?For that matter, why did you bring any of these points up if you didn't think they were important? I am simply responding to what you wrote. Again, if you don't ever want to be disagreed with, why do you post to a debate board?"First of all, have you ever read ANYTHING from the professional literature in Evolutionary Biology? Have you ever read Origin of Species? Have you ever taken a college-level Biology course?"These questions are anything but vague, and they are completely valid in the context of this debate. You keep making claims from what I suspect is an uneducated position. So, I repeat, what is your Biology education background?Second of all, the Selfish Gene is a popular press book by Dawkins and is not in any way a "new version" of the ToE! NOT AT ALL."You made the claim. In debate, it is customary to concede a point when one is shown to be wrong, or at least provide counter evidence if you still think you are right. Are you going to do either WRT your claim that "The Selfish Gene" is a "new version" of the ToE?"Third of all, can you please describe what you would consider "high standards" WRT a scientific Theory? What, exactly, would the ToE be like if it had a "high standard"?"I'd still like to know the answers to this, because it really is the crux of your argument, isn't it? You complain about the ToE not being formal, but what would it look like if it was perfect in your eyes? What are the questions it would answer, and what observations in nature would this perfected, formalized ToE be based upon? If you are still intending to dogde the questions, please at least explain why such a claim by you is not relevant to the discussion."Considering that the ToE continues to survive thousands of tests and it's predictions continue to be borne out every day, I fail to see why you continue to believe it is error-prone."This is the point at which you are to come back with a bunch of examples of how the ToE's predictions are actually not borne out repeatedly, and also examples of it failing repeated tests. Certainly you must know that this is the acid test of any scientific theory; repeated survival of tests and predictions based upon the theory which are borne out? Surely you must understand this to be relevant to the discussion; in fact, it is the heart of the matter."The ToE is no more or less error prone and loaded with value judgement than any other scientific theory, such as the Germ Theory of Disease, or the Atomic Theory of Matter. The rules are the same for all science."I am still not confident of your grasp of the scientific method, so I'd like you to explain how you think that the rules of science are different for Biologists as opposed to, say, Physicists or Chemists."Syamsu: Since that is not available you can look into how you use Darwinism yourself, to tell if I'm right or not about it being errorprone and loaded with valuejudgement.

​

Allison: How I use Darwinism myself? How do you mean?"Well, how do you mean, "How I use Darwinism myself?" I'd love to answer your question, but please give me a bit more clarification.Cheers,Allison------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-22-2002]

Quetzal was carelessly spouting false information with authority, even after very specific comments were made about Darwin's Lamarckism.Your argument that it is misleading in certain contexts to say Darwin was a Lamarckian has some merit, but you can of course never deny what is factually true. Lamarckism is also not diametrically opposed to Darwinism logically, they can be seen as complementary to each other. I guess it's most important not to be misleading logically, eventhough that may be misleading historically sometimes.I pointed out the relation of Darwinists to Mendel to talk about standards of formality in Natural Selection theory.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Those things about Mendel I mention, and even things like Darwinism being conducive to making valuejudgements, are not really the substance of the discussion here. I have focused mainly on technical issues about the formulation of Natural Selection theory. Your line of questioning is obviously very combative, and I think will never address a technical question like -if selection is separate from the event of reproduction-.I had pre-university highschool biology, which I admittedly failed on final examination, although I liked the subject. I read Mendel's 2 page Versuche, which I consider highly abstracted (although it should have read AA in stead of A in my opinion). I've read the odd sciencepaper now and then, and they do not impress me that much for standards formality. The formality just mostly seems to consist of using a different sort of language which is still quite garbled and unclear even when you know what it means.Dawkins theory of natural selection is new through his conception of the selfishness of genes.I have numerous times explained in this thread exactly what sort of version of Natural Selection theory I would want. I suggest you read the thread.Darwinism is more speculative, more vague, less uniformly understood, more inconsistent and deceptive then chemistry. In some cases it can be classed with soft sciences like "Marxist Econometry" or something like that.Tests of Natural Selection theory, defined as differential reproductive succes, shows the theory to almost never meaningfully apply. As with the example of the peppered moth. The theory applies for a short while, after which there is no meaningful variation anymore, so the theory stops to apply.A theory that is based on comparing living beings, using words like better, more perfect, more succefull, would obviously be more conducive to making valuejudgements from then a theory about whatever. Where does Einstein talk about inferior not marrying superior in his work on the theory of relativity?You should write down what you think Darwinism is, and how you use it when looking at Nature and society. Describe the typical scenario of Natural Selection, what natural selection leads you to expect to be there. Maybe you look at nature as red in tooth and claw on account of Darwinism. Maybe you have some Darwinian views of marriage, as other Darwinists have had.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]Quetzal was carelessly spouting false information with authority, even after very specific comments were made about Darwin's Lamarckism.
[B][/QUOTE]The only possible response to this absurd statement would be something the board Admin would not permit. As you have failed to provide any actual evidence that anything I wrote was "false information", please carry on without me. I don't need to be insulted by someone who doesn't have the first clue what they're talking about. Enjoy playing with yourself. I'm outta here.

You should have taken back your words that Darwin "manifestly" did not believe in the heritablity of acquired characteristics, after being provided numerous references he did. And also you should have taken back your words that Lamarckism is the antithesis of Darwinism.The Giraffe acquires a long neck through habit of stretching, and then this long neck is reproduced, since the long neck contributes to it's own reproduction, by enabling the giraffe to get to the higher leaves.I can only assume that the reason you don't correct yourself has to do with needless assertions of your authority on subjects in your posts.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[b]Those things about Mendel I mention, and even things like Darwinism being conducive to making valuejudgements, are not really the substance of the discussion here.[/QUOTE]Then why did you make the claims?

quote:

---

I have focused mainly on technical issues about the formulation of Natural Selection theory.

---

You have also made out of context quotes in the informal, yet typical, scientific writing of Darwin's day, and called them "damaging". This shows a lack of understanding on your part of the history of science.

quote:

---

Your line of questioning is obviously very combative,

---

It is certainly direct, it's true. I feel it's best to be clear. I am sorry if you feel defensive when contemplating my questions, but I fail to see how your reaction to them makes them any less appropriate or germain to the topic. This is a debate board.

quote:

---

and I think will never address a technical question like -if selection is separate from the event of reproduction-.

---

Others here do a much better job than I could do in addressing the ins and outs of selection. However, let's not forget that you are the one making claims, and I am simply challenging them. If you don't want to be challenged on a claim that Darwin's language is "damaging", or if you think that that subject isn't very important, then why on Earth did you ever bring it up in the first place??

quote:

---

I had pre-university highschool biology, which I admittedly failed on final examination, although I liked the subject. I read Mendel's 2 page Versuche, which I consider highly abstracted (although it should have read AA in stead of A in my opinion). I've read the odd sciencepaper now and then, and they do not impress me that much for standards formality. The formality just mostly seems to consist of using a different sort of language which is still quite garbled and unclear even when you know what it means.

---

OK, from this I get that you didn't do well in high school Biology, have no college level biology background, have only read a couple of scientific papers and didn't understand them. Which papers did you read? Oh, and you haven't actually read Origin of Species.However, even despite all of this, you feel comfortable saying that the science papers you read but didn't understand lacked "formality". Futhermore, based upon your relative ignorance of the subject, you feel comfortable saying that the entire field of Evolutionary Biology is built upon the shakiest of foundations. Incredible!

quote:

---

Dawkins theory of natural selection is new through his conception of the selfishness of genes.

---

No, it isn't. The idea of evolution being for the "good" of the genes rather than the "good" of the species is not a new idea. Dawkins didn't come up with this idea, but his popular press book, "The Selfish Gene", did a good job of clarifying it.

quote:

---

I have numerous times explained in this thread exactly what sort of version of Natural Selection theory I would want. I suggest you read the thread.

---

I have read it, and I still don't understand what you want. Part of the problem is that you do not fully understand what the ToE claims, and therefore are not able to explain how you would like it to be different.

quote:

---

Darwinism is more speculative, more vague, less uniformly understood, more inconsistent and deceptive then chemistry.

---

Please explain how this is the case. Use specific examples from Biology and Chemistry. Dees this apply to the field of Biochemistry as well? What I would like you to do is explain to me, SPECIFICALLY, how the rules of science are different for Biology compared to any other science. (second time I've asked) What I am really trying to do is to get you to reveal if you even know what the basic rules of science actually are.

quote:

---

In some cases it can be classed with soft sciences like "Marxist Econometry" or something like that.

​

Tests of Natural Selection theory, defined as differential reproductive succes, shows the theory to almost never meaningfully apply.

---

Evidence from the professional literature that this is the case, please.

quote:

---

As with the example of the peppered moth. The theory applies for a short while, after which there is no meaningful variation anymore, so the theory stops to apply.

---

What do you mean by "meaningful variation?"

quote:

---

A theory that is based on comparing living beings, using words like better, more perfect, more succefull, would obviously be more conducive to making valuejudgements from then a theory about whatever.
Where does Einstein talk about inferior not marrying superior in his work on the theory of relativity?

---

The ToE DOSEN'T MAKE VALUE JUDGEMENTS. The ToE doesn't ever "talk about inferior not marrying superior"! It is political people misusing the ToE for their own political ends who have done this. Again, do not blame a scientific theory for the damage done by those who have misused it. It talks about which lifeforms reproduce in greater numbers and which lifeforms reproduce in fewer numbers, within a given environment. That's it.You are the one taking Darwin's informal language of 150 years ago and misconstruing it to mean that modern Biologists make lots of value judgements. This, again, is your lack of understanding of science and Biology shining through.

quote:

---

You should write down what you think Darwinism is, and how you use it when looking at Nature and society. Describe the typical scenario of Natural Selection, what natural selection leads you to expect to be there. Maybe you look at nature as red in tooth and claw on account of Darwinism. Maybe you have some Darwinian views of marriage, as other Darwinists have had.

---

Maybe you don't know what you are talking about.I recognize Evolution at work when it is discovered that 10% of the Caucasian population has either full or partial immunity to HIV because they are descended from Europeans who survived the Black Plague. I also recognize Evolution at work when a new species of nylon-digesting bacteria is found.I really think you need to stop confusing the science of Biology with the old notions of Social "Darwinism". They are not the same thing.

quote:

---

I recognize Evolution at work when it is discovered that 10% of the Caucasian population has either full or partial immunity to HIV because they are descended from Europeans who survived the Black Plague

---

Sorry to break the flow here but...
This sounds odd. I have never heard of it. Can you please give some reference to this 'imminity'? Magazine, newspaper, journal or link will work just fine.thanks for your help...and sorry again for the break in the thread.