Falsification theory of Natural Selection

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

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.

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 relationshipsI 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

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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.

---

Evolution is described as a change in allele frequency over
time.Effectively this means a change in TRAIT frequencies over time.Mutation and reproduction do not result in this, unless there
us some way in which some TRAITS are preferentially preserved
in the population.Yes, whether the mutation reproduces or not is important for
carrying the trait forward.It is the last point you make, which indicates that selection
IS 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 UNABLE
to reproduce ... that will clearly not be carried forward.Nor is there any question that a fatal mutation is selected against
by definition.But what about a trait which is NOT related to reproduction. How
does that impact evolution ?Suppose a trait change made some individuals in a herd population
faster than others. How would that 'speed' trait affect the
population and why ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I'm stunned you now ask me what selection has to do with the event of reproduction.

---

But do you have an answer ?My contention is that individuals are subject to selection based
upon 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) breed
most.Perhaps if you focus thought re: natural selection on the TRAITS
and not the individuals, you will see where I'm coming from.maybe I'm mis-understanding you ... reproduction alone cannot
promote evolution. Reproduction + mutation cannot promote
evolution without some selection of the individuals within each
generation.Basically I don't understand what is your problem with
Natural Selection (and I have re-read everything).You seem to be hung up on reproduction, but reproduction on its
own 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 can
SURVIVE changing environmental conditions. If conditions change too
radically some populations become extinct, and others rise
to fill the empty ecological niche.

[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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

No, I am attacking your misunderstanding of the scientific method, and Evolutionary Theory. You confuse philosopy and social politics with science constantly.

quote:

---

Some scientists derived from Dawkins highly influential selfish gene version of Natural Selection theory,

---

"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:

---

that people are not just born selfish as Dawkins said, but are also born racist.

---

Oh? Which scienctists and where can I read their comments?

quote:

---

When asked if this was a logical hypotheses following from Dawkins theory, Dawkins agreed, but said he prefers yet another theory of biological racism.

---

So?

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

So is this politics imposing on science, or science imposing on politics? Who is confusing Darwinism with Social Darwinism?

---

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:

---

Does Dawkins use of the word selfish describe anything, does it actually make strict sense?

---

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:

---

It's not so simple as you make it sound.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

Unless you can address qustions like if or not competition is required to be there to call a process Natural Selection,

---

Competition for resources is a factor in NS, yes.

quote:

---

if selection is separate from the event of reproduction,

---

It may be seperate, yes, because individuals may die before they are sexually-mature.

quote:

---

if selection only applies to variation, or if it applies to single organism,

---

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

quote:

---

then I think your contribution can be just dismissed as typical Darwinist combativeness.

---

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"

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

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, but
by evolution.NS doesn't even require mutations if variability exists within
the population already.

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 reproductionAnd 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 reproductionA 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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]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.[/QUOTE]

​

You keep attributing aspects of Social Darwinism to the science of Evolutionary Biology. This is inappropriate mixing of politics and science.

​

Decide which topic you want to discuss; social darwinism, which has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics and emotions, or Darwinism, which is the foundation of modern Biology.

​

If you want "formality" in Evolutionary Biology, then go read some population genetics. All the numbers you want there:

​

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/popgenes.html

​

quote:

---

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.

---

​

Within science, there are no value judgements made. People make value judgements, and if they misuse science to make value judgements, then that is not reflective upon the science.

​

Of course there is a relationship between darwinism and social darwinism. All I am saying is that whatever the social darwinists think makes no difference to the validity of Darwin's research and findings and if the predictions of the ToE continue to be borne out.

​

quote:

---

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.

---

​

Not true, see above. You are simply wrong about science promoting the ideas of social darwinism. It doesn't. So far, you haven't shown me any evidence that it does. All you have done is allude vaguely to "some scientists".

​

quote:

---

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.

---

​

Social Darwinism is the misuse of science for political and emotional purposes.

​

Evolutionary Biology does not espouse or promote anything that social darwinists have ever espoused or promoted. Social darwinism is a political, philosophical movement which misused the concepts of darwinism to further their own political and emotional ends.

​

Do you detect an intricate, diabolical relationship between folding chair manufacturers and professional wrestling organizations because of the common occurrance of wrestlers hitting each other with folding chairs? You are blaming the folding chair manufacturers because of how some people have misused their product.

---

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 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.

---

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?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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.

---

Evolution is about populations, not about individuals.That's the definition of evolution.For natural selection to be operating (and I agree that it is
not 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:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

It leads to thinking that the mutation is competitive, because that is the only sensible way to argue about preferential reproduction.

---

No it's not.That one variant survives better than another is not necessarily
about 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:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

If organisms are close by each other, but they (partly) use different resources, then they are in (partly) different environments.

---

No, they are not. For environment (the way I use it) read
eco-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:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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)

---

I think I follow your reasoning, but you are simplifying the
environment too much (it is possible to iver-simplify as well
as to make too complex).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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

---

The above summarises natural selection. In case 1, the trait is
selected 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 you
don't survive you cannot reproduce.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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

---

Check what you mean by environment again ... I think you are
being too simplistic on this point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

Describe an organism in terms of the event of its reproduction for
me, so that I can check what you mean.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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.

---

Explain evolution without talking about populations.You are mixing evolution and natural selection again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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!

---

No single organism holds an eco-system together. An eco-system
is composed of all organisms and the web of interactions between
them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

The latter point above is WHY evolution is necessary, and explains
why survival is the key to natural selection.After the fire/comet impact the environment is radically different
and 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:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Besides most creatures aren't mutants, they are not (significantly) different from their ancestor.

---

You do not require mutants, only variation. And significant (as I am
sure 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:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

Without variation there can be no natural selection (or any kind
of selection for that matter).Choose/select one of the following ::1) a blue circle
2) a blue circle
3) a blue circle... doesn't make sense unless there are variation in the options.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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.

---

And you don't beleive that survival has much impact on ones
ability to reproduce ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Evolution is just an incidental happenstance that doesn't occur very much, as also asserted with the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

---

Agreed (sort of), but we are discussing the mechanism for evolution
so 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:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

Why ? Longevity is not the issue. It may be that the adaptation
that 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' as
an isolated term ... sorry I thought you realised that, it's
the way survival is used in everything I've read in NS.

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

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

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

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.