natural selection is wrong

quote:

---

You can have evolution mean changes in frequencies, but you can't then use the theory of evolution to explain changes in structure of organisms, or sequences of changes in structure of organisms. To do that, you have to start with mutation.

---

Mutations are just new alleles, and these new alleles vary in frequency with respect to their fitness within a certain environment. New mutations can create new structures, and these new structures are the variation which is then tested against the environment. "Changes in frequency" better describes the flow of variation through a population as compared to "descent with modification".

quote:

---

I think it's signficant to note that you are disconnecting yourself from the realities of reproduction and mutation, by explaining in terms of populationshare. The population as a whole is reconstrued as one continuous organic body, which changes in response to the environment.

---

I am not disconnecting myself from reality. In actuality, I am portraying what we observe in reality. Population share is exactly what we see. For instance, look at sickle cell anemia. In areas with endemic malaria the frequence of the sickle cell gene is high. In areas of no malaria, the frequency of this gene is quite low and usually directly attributed to migration out of malarial hotspots. Again, I am making claims based on OBSERVATION, which is a reflection of reality.Also, I am not claiming that a population is a single, organic body. If it were we would never observe instances of speciation. Speciation shows how new populations can form because of local variation and selection.

The problem as I see it is that the Darwinian ACTION of the individual which is like toooo many angels on the head of the pin that one ends up in HELL can not tell the difference between the seperation of SEX (male and female) from the any small jiggling of the egg or see whether caused by Behavior of an ACT of GOD. This seems to be how it could come about that there is no field as of yet of deductive biogeography while if there is continuity of reproducation AND change there should be. ONE, just one more egg changes the number in a population and I dont think it can be demonstrated that even one more egg NOT FERTILIZED can have absolutely no effect on the population either. Darwin's insistance on the wedge in tooth in claw economcs is probably come up against the information techonology of today. I really see no way around it but dividing up (wrongly) I would suggest as Slathe did the economic and geneological hierarhices sneaking the SPECIES out of what goes for money today (the ecosystem etc). But that is only my opnion. It seems possible that INDIVIDUAL observations such as WK has together might COME BACK in Vogue (even beyond Russel in the ways I dontlike) due to Wolfram's simple program but as long as the sublime is not appreciated the inventions of man in this regard might always be trumped by a few anteaters tracing the South American Pampers.

Then show me a study of differential fitness of populations going extinct, if extinction is included in differential fitness. What would be the bloody point in most all cases of extinction, of noting a variant which goes extinct slower, either adaptively or randomly, noting that in most cases you don't have the luxury at all to go out and identify all this variation. You better first go out finding the *common traits* among all individuals which are critical for it's reproduction, which is getting obstructed, before the species disappears, rather then that you go out and try to find any type of variation.Again as a matter of structure of knowledge you can't separate "one variant reproducting the other variant not reproducing" from "both variants not reproducing", as separate theories, as "another field of biology", "another branch of biology". This should be obvious to all but the prejudicially impaired. I don't see you have presented any argument against it.Incidentally, as mentioned before in this thread I believe, this kind of failure to recognize the structure of knowlege goes on throughout Darwinism, as also Dawkins very influential selfish gene theory posits a false dichotomy between selfishness and altruism as the hypothesis. The structure of knowledge *demands* that this theory about the relationship between organisms in terms of reproduction, should in stead be a theory about selfishness, altruism, mutual benefit, and mutual destruction. (I'm not sure if relationships that are partially neutral would also need to be mentioned)Real fitness refers to numbers reproduced, where relative fitness refers to populationshare.No I don't intend to contact the moderators, because moderators on this forum never arbitrate points as far as I know, even in the great debate forum.Maybe there is some teleology in other sciences as well, and this would probably also be problematical in regards to the ideal of objectivity in science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Dear Syamsu,Thank you for showing that you also fail to understand Dawkin's Selfish gene theory. One of the main points of which is that there is no dichotomy between 'selfish' genes and altruistic behaviour at the organismal level.Thank you for finally addressing the issue of teleology in science. It was aristotle that formalised teleologies place in science and science is, with a few retrograde steps, moving steadily away from teleological theories.I'll try and find you a suitable study tomorrow, I'm at home now so I only have access to abstracts not the full text of papers.TTFN,WK

I don't think it has any merit to do an exegesis on Aristotle's writing, when there are quite straightforward points to be addressed.I've already shown where the teleology comes in to play. It is crucical for sake of consistency that when the environment rejects all variants, it is treated fundamentally the same way as when the environment rejects some particular variant. Not to do that, not to apply these simple rules of consistency which are part of all knowledge organization, would inevitably entail prejudice.You are avoiding arguments, seemingly pontificating your authority, or my lack of authority. If you want to deny that science does not demand these kind of very simple rules of consistency in knowledge as I explained with Dawkins, and with extinction, and the paper explained with events that are equally likely to happen to variants, then do so.Well, at this point I would appeal to a moderator again, if there was one, to direct you to tell me what your counterargument actually is.All I can see is a fudge, that it is all very complex... and allegations that I don't know what I'm talking about... no actual argument.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Dear Syamsu,A couple of papers relevant to the topic we were discussing. The first is a review of population genetic studies in 4 different endangered species and the second a study of bearded vultures. The second paper requires a subscription to see the full text but the abstract is detailed enought to show its relevance to our discussion.TTFN,WK

What were or are the things making the bearded vulture go extinct? What traits do they *all share* that is critical for their reproduction, which don't work anymore.Obviously these kinds of things are the first questions to ask. They address the question how it happened that the environment rejects the bearded vulture, just as one might ask, how it happened that the environment rejected the white moth. It is the same principle, providing the fundamental knowledge, not some other branch or field of biology.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Dear Syamsu,Have you read the paper or only the abstract?TTFN,WK

Dear Syamsu,Why not actually appeal to a moderator/ admin if you think I am flaunting the forum rules? They are contactable, e-mail the relevant mod or start a thread in a suitable forum. At the moment you seem to feel that bleating and passing my rebuttals off as complicated fudge and avoiding your points will be seen as a reasoned argument. Why not instead address my points or formulate your questions in a clear way which actually makes sense. Ideally these should actually be in the form of a question as well.If you specify anything that you consider 'complicated fudge' I will endeavour to simplify it. I have often asked you to do the same thing with your own posts with a generally lamentable lack of success, akthough there have been a few instances of clarity breaking through in some of the threads we have discussed on.I certainly don't appeal to my own authority, I believe you are being confused by what we term 'evidence' which is when there is actually something seperate from your own claims which supports those claims. I am not saying my argument is better than yours because of my authority. I am saying it is better because I have consistently presented evidence from the scientific literature to support my claims while the best you have managed is to repeatedly cannibalise a philosophy paper to cherry pick quotes you believe support your theories, and then repeated the same things over and over again.If you object to my suggestions that you are unfamiliar or prone to misinterpretation of some basic areas of science then all you have to do is show that my claims that you lack understanding are false by addressing the specific issues on those areas which I raised, such as the place of Newtonian mechanics in science, and demonstrating the depth of your grasp.TTFN,WK

I would like some actual counterargument to the straightforward rules of organizing knowledge, that you can't exlude all variants not reproducing, as some kind of separate theory from one variant reproducing, and the other not reproducing.Do you actually agree or not that fundamentally, reproduction or no reproduction is what the environment "decides" in any selection or "testing" theory, or are you saying that the environment selects between variant options to reproduce (as you quite emphatically said before in this thread), so that extinction of all variants is not actually a logical possibility within the theory (which makes your reference to a paper alluding to natural selection in case of extinction rather absurd). It is not a logical possibility that the environment rejects both, when the role of the environment in the theory is, completely prejudicially, constricted to select between one or the other.And also why don't you argue the same thing with Dawkins. How can Dawkins hypothesize selfishness and altruism in the beginning of the book, but not mention mutual benefit, and mutual destruction as part of the hypothesis? Is this a stupid simple error Dawkins is making, or am I being stupidly simplistic to assume that these rules in organizing knowledge would apply to actual science? Can't you see how prejudicial it is to lift out a couple of relationships, and ignore the others in the hypothesis?relationships of organism in terms of reprodcuction / survival benefit
A+B- selfishness, behaviour of A benefitting A but costing B
A-B+ altruism
A-B- mutual cost
A+B+ mutual benefitIsn't that actually what constitutes the fault in separating genetic drift from natural selection also? That you can't separate observations of equal likelyhood to reproduce between variants, from observations of differing likelyhood to reproduce into separate theories (leading to meandering about them being separate forces), just as a matter of organizing knowledge consistently and impartially.The paper you refer to, although fantastically complex and knowledgable I'm sure, does not actually say in the abstract how it happened that the bearded vulture is becoming extinct. This is of course the first point of interest in any case of extinction. If this had been a case of variants, like say white and black moths, (or longbearded and shortbearded vultures) then I'm quite sure that the reason for the extinction of the white moth would of course immediately have been given. The trees turn black making them visible to birds, and besides that black moths outcompete the white moths for resources, encroaching on them. (although I guess the white moth didn't go extinct in the actual event, I'm just arguing a principle point here). So what is the point of referencing me this paper on extinction, which doesn't treat the extinction of the bearded vulture in a similar way as a variant going extinct.I'm quite sure that if I had argued that genetic drift and natural selection should be part of one theory, without referencing some paper, that you would have denied that there was any kind of prejudice in excluding genetic drift from natural selection. You would have referenced all the papers talking about genetic drift, so to suggest that there is no prejudice against genetic drift by excluding it from the logic of natural selection, just as you now suggest that there is no prejudice against extinction of all variants for the same reason, by referencing some paper mentioning extinction.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Dear Syamsu, You haven't said whether you have read either paper, from what you say it sounds like you haven't. Both of the papers make a very explicit case for the importance of genetic variation in the study of extinction. Please, just because you aren't capable of supporting your arguments with evidence don't dismiss mine as irrelevant with a wave of your hand.If you can't actually read the bearded vulture paper due to a lack of access then why not focus on the PNAS review which you certainly can get access to.I have indeed shown that genetic drift is not excluded from the study of population genetics, in what way does this not rebut the suggestion in your paper. The fact that you have one highly speculative theoretical paper, albeit one that makes some interesting points, In no way makes the case you seem to think it does. No where you are being stupid is in commenting on a book which you appear not to have read beyond the beginning of the book. Dawkin's does deal with mutualism/ reciprocal altruism. There is a considerable body of literature about evolutionarily stable strategies and game theory which show how mutualistic relatonships evolve.You can seperate trends due to selection from those due to drift in a study of a populations genetics, this doesn't mean that they operate in a way analogous to Newtonian forces.Is it equally prejudicial to try and work out the motion of planets without factoring in the gravitational effects of Alpha Centauri? All you are showing is that you fail to grasp the way science is done at all, let alone in evolutionary biology.The environment does not 'have' to select between one variant and another, it is quite possible to have variation which does not lead to a variation in fitness. Since you only determine a variation in fitness over successive generations there is no reason variants cannot have equal fitness. Could you reference this? I have certainly never said it excludes the possibility of extinction, a population going extinct can still have one variant reproducing more than the others. As I pointed out this is only a problem if you insist on looking at the frequency of variation as a percentage or some such abstracted measure, you can just as well look at the raw data in terms of numbers and get the additive benefit of being able to measure the populations dynamics, it all rather depends on how you are doing your measurements/ experiment.Population genetics does not exclude any of the relationships you have put forward. I do agree that whether an organism reproduces or not, is the filter through which selection operates but this is exactly the same as the environment selecting 'between variant options to reproduce'. The selection is done by the totality of the organisms environment, the other organisms in the same environment are under the same selecvtive pressures therefore the environment is selecting and that selection is reflected in the genetic contsitution of subseqeunt genrations which is determined by the reproductive success of specific variants in the previous genration. The environment 'selects' in the same way that a hill 'selects' the path a ball rolling down it will take.TTFN,WK

I don't see you are flaunting forum rules. I just think the argument is not progressing towards a conclusion, and I imagine that if a moderator would step in to arbitrate points that this would help. But moderators on this forum are not arbitrators generally.Wounded King:
"I do agree that whether an organism reproduces or not, is the filter through which selection operates but this is exactly the same as the environment selecting 'between variant options to reproduce'."No it is self evidently not exactly the same, the definitions contain different words. It is not logically possible that selection between variants means both not getting selected ( or both getting selected for that matter) If Darwinists do use it as both not getting selected, apparently as in the papers you referenced, then that just means that Darwinists are taking liberties with logic, not that the practice is logically valid.So I would have a moderator arbitrate this rather obvious point of logic, and that would be the end of the debate as far as I can tell. I guess it's worthwile to have narrowed the debate down to just one point.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The fact that definitions contain different words does not neccessarily mean that they are not self evidently the same, whether they are 'exactly the same' seems like a point of semantics the way you present it.The fact that reproduction is the filter through which selection acts does not mean that this has to be acting on all traits all the time. A population in which both variants are enjoying equal reproductive success and the gene frequencies are stable is not one where natural selection is in evidence, but it is something which is modelled by population genetics. It is also not evolution.As I pointed out the population genetics are based on real numbers taking from the population those numbers will, unless some very poor experimental design was in evidence, reflect the numbers of the actual population.I will admit that if absoloutely no organism in a population has any offspring then looking at population share breaks down but only because there is no population which will be self evident to those looking at the population genetics, you could then say that the population share of all the genotypes in the population was 0 but it is easier just to say the population is extinct.Within that population one variant can be selected for over another and the population level still decrease. You can still look at it solely in terms of population share if you wish by simply looking at the population at a further remove. Local instances of extinction may occur after all but there are wider populations of which that is only a subset. Within that wider subset one specific population with its own profile of genetics and variation is rendered extinct. If you wish I could direct you to a number of papers which deal with local extinction and re-invasion of particualr environments, but you seem to have nothing but contempt for actual scientific research which relates to the questions we are trying to discuss.I wasn't talking about both not getting selected, I assumed that your -/+ notation refered to population levels due to reproductive success, perhaps if you made the assumptions behind your notation more explicit things would be easier. The relationship between organism in terms of their roles as one anothers environment is a fairly complex concept with a lot of factors involved, you seem to be approaching it as something trivially easy to model.Please just one straight answer, have you read either of the papers?TTFN,WK

I didn't read either paper, so what, we are debating the fundamentals of natural selection, not any particular application.You failed to address the point that the abstract on the bearded vulture doesn't mention what it is that is threatening it with extinction. In other words the paper you referenced in support of saying that natural selection / evolution covers extinction, doesn't mention the first basic thing about extinction, what it is that is making the species go extinct, in the abstract. It is therefore lousy as a paper on extinction.It is more appropiately understood as a study of variation as a populationtrait, a trait which helps a population to persist. The role of variation in the paper is quite different from that in standard natural selection theory, because variation in it's entirety is itself a trait in the paper, where in standard theory only the particular variants are traits.But this is all irrellevant because you have already agreed that reproduction, or no reproduction is the filter through which natural selection acts. So the question then becomes just a matter of organization of knowledge. If you think that this filter is fundamental to standard natural selection, and genetic drift, and extinction, then obviously this filter is the fundamental theory, and genetic drift and natural selection, and extinction are derative applications of the fundamental theory. You have no basis anymore for denying the "fundamental theorem", which means you have no argument anymore.The +/- notation refers to Dawkins selfish gene hypothesis. Dawkins says that selfishness is when the behaviour of one organism benefits itself, and costs another organism of it's kind in terms of chances of survival. So that is how the + and - are meant to be understood, as benefits and costs in terms of survival, just like Dawkins said.I think the simplified notation quite clearly illustrates the blatant error in lifing out a few relationships and not mentioning the others in a hypothesis.relationships of organism in terms of reprodcuction / survival benefit
A+B- selfishness, behaviour of A benefitting A but costing B
A-B+ altruism, behaviour of A costing A, benefitting B
A-B- mutual cost, behaviour of A costing A, costing B
A+B+ mutual benefit, behavour of A benefitting A, benefitting B
----So the options in terms of the filter of reproduction no reproduction are:
1. A- A+and with 2 organisms they are:
2. A1+ A2+
3. A1+ A2-
4. A1- A2-
5. A1- A2+and with variants they are:
6. A+ B+
7. A+ B-
8. A- B-
9. A- B+where 1 through 5, and 6 and 8 would tend to fall outside natural selection / evolution, and be, prejudicially, described as some kind of different theories.regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 06-10-2004 01:07 AM

If you refuse to look at the evidence supporting any of my positions, and furthermore try and criticise them, despite having only read the abstract, then all you are doing is showing your lack of interest in actually understanding any position other than your own.If you aren't prepared to debate these things in good faith, simply regurgitating your own ideas and rubbishing opposing opinions without actually rebutting them then I don't see how you ever hope to convince anyone that your ideas have any value whatsoever.Your 'fundamental theorem' isn't a theorem, it is simply a list of relationships, you have yet to show how it can ever actually be applied to either study evolution, without comparisons, or do anything useful at all in fact. An example of how you expect to pratically apply your 'theorem' might make things clearer. This would fall under a different theory to evolution , even though you might make use of some of the same processes to measure factors related to both.TTFN,WK