|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5610 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsification theory of Natural Selection | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Your concern about keeping threads on topic is appreciated, but inquiries such as this, and any reply, are fine. It's only a problem if a new discussion develops, in which case a new thread should be opened.
------------------ --EvC Forum Administrator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6032 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/html98/plag_051098.html
This 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5610 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Your questions are not germain to the topic, or direct, since they don't address the technical issues relating to the formulation of Natural Selection theory.
I didn't say Dawkins new idea was to take the gene as unit of selection, I said the new idea was the qualifier selfishness, which Dawkins wants to use as a technical term to describe something, not as some metaphore. You cannot possibly not know exactly what I want if you had only read the thread, since I state it explicitly.- namechange of NS into theory of reproduction - discarding the setup of differential reproductive success - focus on physical relationships, in stead of comparitive relationships I think you may be very right in saying that others are better at addressing technical points about the theory of Natural Selection, since all you seem to be able to produce are a series of plattitudes about science and evolution theory. Some scientists derived from Dawkins highly influential selfish gene version of Natural Selection theory, that people are not just born selfish as Dawkins said, but are also born racist. When asked if this was a logical hypotheses following from Dawkins theory, Dawkins agreed, but said he prefers yet another theory of biological racism. These scientists mentioned want to explain the origins of racism to better fight it, but my guess is that they, or other scientists could also conveniently argue to make significant compromises towards racism, since it is supposedly inherent in everyone of us as a basic drive, like going to the toilet is a basic drive. So is this politics imposing on science, or science imposing on politics? Who is confusing Darwinism with Social Darwinism? Does Dawkins use of the word selfish describe anything, does it actually make strict sense? It's not so simple as you make it sound. A formalized and systemized selfish gene theory (and theory of Natural Selection) would more easily show it's weaknesses, and strenghts. It would also more easily show the weaknesses and strengths from the hypotheses derived from it. But this is not available, eventhough it is highly influential among Darwinist scientists. Unless you can address questions like if or not competition is required to be there to call a process Natural Selection, if selection is separate from the event of reproduction, if selection only applies to variation, or if it applies to single organism, then I think your contribution can be just dismissed as typical Darwinist combativeness. No doubt there are the same believers in "inherent racism" who are just as combative and ignorant about their theory as you apparently are about the theory of natural selection. regard,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
octipice Inactive Member |
The main problem I see with your statement is that you are trying ot stick to only the scientific when delving into a partially scientific, but mostly philosophic issue or issues. In regard to the idea of an inherent racism and/or selfishness, I believe that you have forgotten a very important philosphic theory. That being the theory of utility created by Jeremy Bentham. The general idea is that all behavior is goverened by the simple but true fact that everyone does what will satisfy them most.
When applied to selfishness, it means that a person will do what it takes to preserve themself and their ideals, which means being selfish. And furthermore that all actions are inherently selfish because they are driven by the need to satisfy one's self both mentally and physically. When applied to racism this simply means that a person, if given the opportunity, would chose to be around someone who would satisfy them the most. Often a person will choose someone more like themselves because they like themselves more than most others. I would like to address some of the other issues that were brought up in your last post, however it's really late and I have to go to work tomorrow. Maybe some other time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1499 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Evolution is described as a change in allele frequency overtime. Effectively this means a change in TRAIT frequencies over time. Mutation and reproduction do not result in this, unless thereus some way in which some TRAITS are preferentially preserved in the population. Yes, whether the mutation reproduces or not is important forcarrying the trait forward. It is the last point you make, which indicates that selectionIS not the same as reproduction ... even in your own thinking. You say that we must consider the EFFECT of the mutation. The issue with natural selection is not that a mutation is UNABLEto reproduce ... that will clearly not be carried forward. Nor is there any question that a fatal mutation is selected againstby definition. But what about a trait which is NOT related to reproduction. Howdoes that impact evolution ? Suppose a trait change made some individuals in a herd populationfaster than others. How would that 'speed' trait affect the population and why ? quote: But do you have an answer ? My contention is that individuals are subject to selection basedupon the traits that they (as individuals) possess, and how that impacts their ability to survive their current environment. Those individuals which are selected (by surviving longest) breedmost. Perhaps if you focus thought re: natural selection on the TRAITSand not the individuals, you will see where I'm coming from. maybe I'm mis-understanding you ... reproduction alone cannotpromote evolution. Reproduction + mutation cannot promote evolution without some selection of the individuals within each generation. Basically I don't understand what is your problem withNatural Selection (and I have re-read everything). You seem to be hung up on reproduction, but reproduction on itsown has no impact on evolution ... or at least would imply random change in populations ... which is NOT suggested by evolution. Evolution is an adaptation mechanism, so that populations canSURVIVE changing environmental conditions. If conditions change too radically some populations become extinct, and others rise to fill the empty ecological niche.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]Your questions are not germain to the topic, or direct, since they don't address the technical issues relating to the formulation of Natural Selection theory.[/QUOTE] Then why did you bring the subjects up in the first place? I am only responding to you! YOU must think they are important, or you wouldn't have done so, correct? Silly. Of course they are direct, and germaine. You just don't want to answer them.
quote: Wrong, wrong, wrong. "The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book[, not a scientific paper. How many times do you need to be told this before you will accept that popular press books and professional scientific papers are not the same thing? The entire book is an attempt to explain, in layman's terms, the idea that NS works for the "good" of the genes, not the "good" of the species. The important phrase here is "layman's terms". Since you seem to be so sure that "selfishness" has become a technical term, and has a meaning beyond metaphor, in the field of Evolutionary Biology. Please provide some citatations to the professional Biology literature which uses this term in a non-metaphorical way. I would even accept college texbook quotes. Let's say that you are right, and "selfishness" does have a technical meaning in the field of Biology. What is that technical meaning? Please define it.
quote: No, I am attacking your misunderstanding of the scientific method, and Evolutionary Theory. You confuse philosopy and social politics with science constantly.
quote: "The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book, not a new version of NS. The ideas did not originate with Dawkins. The idea that NS happens for the "good" of the genes and not the "good" of the species was not new when Dawkins wrote his book.
quote: Oh? Which scienctists and where can I read their comments?
quote: So?
quote: You haven't mentioned any scientists, actually. You have only referred to the favorite Creationist "some scientists think X" argument. Which scientists are you talking about, and where can I read their comments? Your guesses about what scientists may or may not argue aren't really important.
quote: You are. You have built up a bunch of hooey about what these unnamed, unknown "scientists" supposedly have said, made a bunch of suppositions about what these "scientists" may or may not do, and are now acting as though it has all already happened!! Science does not make value judgements. People, including scientists, do. Of course, scientists are human, and can make inappropriate value judgements based upon scientific research just like anyone else. However, I think it is much more likely for non-scientists and people who don't understand science to misinterpret scientific findings for their own political or emotional reasons. This is exactly what you are doing.
quote: Yes, it describes something. It describes, in layman's terms, the idea (which he did not originate) that NS operates for the "good" of the genes, rather than the "good" of the species. It makes perfect sense, but if you mean, "does it have a non-metaphorical, technical meaning? I don't think so.
quote: Well, sure, when you make a bunch of stuff up, and also inappropriately mix in your ideas of social Darwinism with Evolutionary Biology, it would seem much more complicated.
quote: OK, you keep making reference to "scienctists" and how they are influenced by "selfish gene theory". Please start referencing professional literature that uses anything called "selfish gene theory", and please start naming some names of these scientists who are influenced.
quote: Competition for resources is a factor in NS, yes.
quote: It may be seperate, yes, because individuals may die before they are sexually-mature.
quote: I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
quote: Look, you are the one who keeps bringing up all of this philosophical social dawinism stuff and mixing it inappropriately with the science of Evolutionary Biology. At the start of this post of yours, in fact, you first say that my questions regarding your comments about social Darwinism and value judgements are not important to the debate, and then you spend most of the rest of your post going on about that very subject! Unless you can address my questions, which you mostly have not, then your contribution can be dismissed as typical Creationist avoidance of the debate. ------------------"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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5610 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
My points about the relationship of Darwinism to Social Darwinism is only about my motivation to try to find a formal and systemized version of Natural Selection theory. Irrespective of my motivation, there still needs to be a formalized and systemized version of Natural Selection theory, as with any other science theory. I do not want to discuss the relationship of Darwinism to Social Darwinism, I just want to clarify my motivation for having a formal and systemized theory of Natural Selection.
As in my first post, you are evidently just one of the many who has simply defined away the problem of the intricate relationship of Darwinism to Social Darwinism. It would be a theoretical impossiblity to you that there is any meaningful relationship between Darwinism and Social Darwinism, so any evidence of such a relationship is excluded beforehand by your ideas. That is potentially seriously evil in my opinion, and in the least it makes discussing this subject with you very annoying. I could not possibly discuss the 1995 eugenic laws of China with you, which are somewhat similar to the Nazi eugenic laws. Or China's forced 1 child policy, which I saw legitimized by a very reasonable talking scientist in a documentary on the subject. I suggest you first brake out of your ideological bind, so you can look at evidence. You are wrong about competition being a *required* factor in Natural Selection. To investigate the fundaments of a theory you need to look for the minimal requirements. You are wrong about Dawkins theory not being highly influential within science, or selfishness not being a technical term. On the first page of Dawkins book it says, "this book is science". There is a technical definition of selfishness in the beginning too, although Dawkins uses technical and colloquial selfishness interchangeably. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1499 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: OK, minimal requirements for Natural Selection:: 1) An environment.2) A population of individuals. 3) Variability (of traits) within the population. Factors in the environment (e.g. weather, competition, predation,asteroids, etc.) relate to traits of individuals (e.g. strength, speed, fur depth, intelligence, etc.) in such a manner that the survival chance of some individuals is different to others. That is the MINIMAL requirement for Natural Selection. Reproduction is additional complexity, not required by NS, butby evolution. NS doesn't even require mutations if variability exists withinthe population already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5610 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
The description of evolution is at issue here, so you can't just say that's the way it is done. You have to give a reason why it's done that way. I argue it's deceptive to describe in terms of preferential reproduction. It's wrong to think in terms of a population since that would lead to thinking that a mutation is neccesarily competitive. It leads to thinking that the mutation is competitive, because that is the only sensible way to argue about preferential reproduction. If organisms are close by each other, but they (partly) use different resources, then they are in (partly) different environments. I think the environment should only be understood to be that which influences the rate of reproduction in some way, and not that which is close by. So the moon would be environment to a crab, and not to any of the other creatures around it since they don't have anything to do with the moon. (this example is not entirely consistent since I guess the other creatures would have something to do with the moon with the ebb and flood in the sea, but not in the special way of the crab getting it's cue for reproduction from it, I just can't think of any consistent example of this, but you should get the theoretical point I'm making)
If there was a mutant which ran faster then it could follow that:-the trait contributed to it's reproduction -the trait diminished it's chance of reproduction -the trait didn't do much of anything to it's chance of reproduction And versus other creatures in the population it could happen that-the mutant inhabits a different environment by it's trait, it does not compete with the rest -the mutant competes with other's in the population and one of the variants goes extinct -there is some competition, and some different environment, which results in a balancingpoint in the population as an environmental factor, like the variance will stay stable at 40 percent of the population, any higher being checked by competition, any lower being checked by the specific contribution of the trait to reproduction A basic theory of reproduction should include all these possibilities (and I'm sure there are many more possibilities with some more complicating factors). The only possible theory that includes all these possibilities is to describe each single organism in terms of the event of reproduction. The possibilities of competition can be seen as complicating factors to the basic theory, but it would be wrong to make a setup that starts out with a population, since that would exclude the possibility of the mutant going into a different environment then it's ancestorpopulation through it's mutation. I guess this won't happen a lot that a mutant goes into a wholy different environment, but that it goes into a partially different envrionment happens a lot I would guess. But what if it does happen that it goes into a completely different environment, and this organism is a sort of organism that holds an entire ecosystem together! Then that would show the theory of differential reproductive success to be very sloppy. It's also possible that it happens quite a lot that mutants go into very different environments then their ancestor mabye, when there is a lot of different environment available, such as after a fire maybe, or a comet-impact. Besides most creatures aren't mutants, they are not (significantly) different from their ancestor. You still have to describe the creature in terms of the event of it's reproduction regardless of any mutations or variations, and this should be ***the main*** application of the theory of Natural Selection. To just describe how an organism reproduces, how each trait contributes to it's reproduction, what the main events are in the creatures life, which influences it's chance of reproduction most. Evolution is just an incidental happenstance that doesn't occur very much, as also asserted with the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Again if you explain in terms of surviving the longest, then we should expect for creatures to live longer and longer. This is not what we see. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: You are wrong about competition being a *required* factor in Natural Selection. To investigate the fundaments of a theory you need to look for the minimal requirements.[/QUOTE] Are you interested in idealized situations, or in real world examples?
quote: You took that quote out of context - Dawkins was merely emphasizing that, as weird as some of his *subject matter* seems, it's taken from science. In context, here it is, from the Preface: "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche' or not, 'stranger than fiction' expresses exactly how I feel about the truth...This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment. Though I have known it for years, I never seem to get fully used to it. One of my hopes is that I may have some sucess in astonishing others." (Dawkins, also from the preface: "My second imaginary reader was the expert. He has been a harsh critic, sharply drawing in his breath at some of my analogies and figures of speech. His favourite phrases are 'with the exception of'; 'but on the other hand'; and 'ugh'. I listened to him attentively, and even completely rewrote one chapter entirely for his benefit, but in the end I have had to tell the story my way." Obviously not intended to be a formal research paper!) "The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book which is based upon science, not a professional paper published in a journal. That means it isn't peer-reviewed, and Dawkins can say anthing he wants. I'm not saying he is wrong, but to call the book "science" is not correct. Are you going to name any of those "some scientists" anytime soon, or do you simply expect me to believe you without evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1499 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Evolution is about populations, not about individuals. That's the definition of evolution. For natural selection to be operating (and I agree that it isnot operating all of the time) simply means that some variants have the advantage. That's not competition as such. Two rivals for the same ecological niche (but different species) would be in competition direclty for that ecological niche. Two individuals of the same species ARE in competition for mates,and sometimes for food. quote: No it's not. That one variant survives better than another is not necessarilyabout competition. In the faster/slower example it is about the ability to evade a predator ... the mutation enables better survivability without competition against siblings. quote: No, they are not. For environment (the way I use it) readeco-system if you like. All of the factors of the eco-system are inter-related. The moon (reading on) affects everything in that eco-system (environment) because it effects the crabs. That has a knock on effect to organisms dependent on the crab, and so on through the food web. quote: I think I follow your reasoning, but you are simplifying theenvironment too much (it is possible to iver-simplify as well as to make too complex). quote: The above summarises natural selection. In case 1, the trait isselected for, 2 is selected against, and 3 is a don't care and so is niether selected for nor against. A contribution to reproductive success is survival. If youdon't survive you cannot reproduce. quote: Check what you mean by environment again ... I think you arebeing too simplistic on this point. quote: Describe an organism in terms of the event of its reproduction forme, so that I can check what you mean. quote: Explain evolution without talking about populations. You are mixing evolution and natural selection again.
quote: No single organism holds an eco-system together. An eco-systemis composed of all organisms and the web of interactions between them. quote: The latter point above is WHY evolution is necessary, and explainswhy survival is the key to natural selection. After the fire/comet impact the environment is radically differentand so what traits are beneficial changes. This in turn leads to different variants winning the survival battle, and passing the trait to offspring ... and the population is changed ... perhaps irrevocably ... it has evolved to meet the changing demands of the environment. quote: You do not require mutants, only variation. And significant (as I amsure you are aware) is a value judgement. A difference which may seem insignificant in one set of environmental conditions may proove a life saver when those conditions change. quote: Without variation there can be no natural selection (or any kindof selection for that matter). Choose/select one of the following :: 1) a blue circle2) a blue circle 3) a blue circle ... doesn't make sense unless there are variation in the options.
quote: And you don't beleive that survival has much impact on onesability to reproduce ? quote: Agreed (sort of), but we are discussing the mechanism for evolutionso we are starting with the assumption that evolution IS happening and attempting to explain, on a generation by generation basis, how that can proceed. quote: Why ? Longevity is not the issue. It may be that the adaptationthat allowed an individual to survive predation also has the effect of shortening its natural life-span. By 'survive' I mean 'survive the environment' not 'survive' asan isolated term ... sorry I thought you realised that, it's the way survival is used in everything I've read in NS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
Syamsu:
Let me take a stab at your evolution/Social Darwinism point. I think that you are making some valid inferences but that you are getting tangled up in some details. The way I see it is this: Populations adapt to thier environments. Humans adapt primarily via culture, or social order. A lot of non-human animals do this as well. Wolves run in packs, ants make nests, and so on. But humans rely on social order to a much greater degree than any other animal and our cultures are flexible as well. Since we are adapting via culture it makes sense to apply the principles of evolution to human culture. What doesn't make since is to apply those principles in the way that the Social Darwinists did. In fact, it seems a stretch to even say that the Social Darwinists applied those principles at all. What the Social Darwinists did, as some others have stated, has nothing to do with science or evolution. It was an attempt to justify an existing world view. It was politics. It was a 'proof' that white folk are superior to everyone else. It is possible to apply natural selection to culture. It is a branch of anthropology called cultural ecology. The tenants are pretty simple. A human population exists in an environment. That population will effect its environment just as the presence of any other animal will effect the environment. The environment will also effect the human population. Since humans adapt culturally, the environment's effects will be seen in the social structure of the environment. Culture is seen as an adaptation. Cultures are not seen as advancing toward perfection or any other such abstract goal. Notice how different this is from Social Darwinism, which postulates a heirarchy of culture from bad to good. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5610 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I can say,
-I select the 2nd blue circle over blue circles 1 and 3 (which is most similar to typical Natural Selection usage, although there is no variation here) -but I can also say I select circle 1 and 2 and 3. The point being that selection essentially refers to reproducing, or not reproducing, and doesn't essentially refer to one or the other variant reproducing. This neccessarily follows from what it is already generally accepted by Darwinists, that the individual is the unit of selection since it either reproduces or fails to reproduce. Making selection essentially refer to variation in stead of reproduction, would make it impossible to have the individual as the unit of selection. Seeing that Natural Selection only means to reproduce or not to reproduce, it becomes quite obvious to rename Natural Selection into something like the general theory of reproduction. So the minimal requirements for Natural Selection are just a single organism and it's environment, and not all the things you said. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5610 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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.
It's wrong for Dawkins not to submit a new technical term to peer-review, especially when saying it is science. That is the context that matters for him saying it's science. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024