Standards by which Natural Selection can be rejected
Nando Ronteltap
There are two standards that need to be employed to reject natural
selection. The standard of systemacy, and the standard of natural
relations for descriptive theories.
Natural selection is commonly explained as differential reproductive
success.
First: The relation between the things differentiated is not a
description of a natural relation (where the one differentiated thing
influences the other in some way), but an artificial comparison (see
Howard Hershey, Boikat, Adam). Comparisons do not exist in nature,
except in the mind of intelligent beings.
Second: Some Darwinists claim that there is a natural relation present
between the things they are differentiating, and that this relation is
competition (see Darwin, Dawkins).
Looking systematically at the theoretically possible ways in which
organisms can influence each others reproduction, I arrive at four
possibilities.
Differentiating units A and B.
A B
+ + Both reproduction increased when together. (mutual benefit)
+ - The one's reproduction increases at the cost of the other.
(competition)
- + same (competition)
- - Both reproduction reduced when together. (mutual loss)
0 0 A net, no gain no loss in reproduction, when together. (neutral
relationship)
So Darwinists unsystematically focus on the relation that the one
increases at the cost of the other (competition), in neglect of the
other possible relations. This prejudicial focus on competitive
relationships is why natural selection is commonly explained as a
"mechanism" that reduces variation (see Talk.origins faq -
Introduction to evolutionary theory, Darwin).
Please if any Darwinist would reply, state if you're a
competitor-Darwinist or a comparison-Darwinist. That means if you
require a relation of competition between the things you are
differentiating to call some event natural selection, or if you only
require a "relation" of comparison between the things you are
differentiating to call some event natural selection.
Nando
Boikat
>
> There are two standards that need to be employed to reject natural
> selection. The standard of systemacy, and the standard of natural
> relations for descriptive theories.
>
> Natural selection is commonly explained as differential reproductive
> success.
>
> First: The relation between the things differentiated is not a
> description of a natural relation (where the one differentiated thing
> influences the other in some way), but an artificial comparison (see
> Howard Hershey, Boikat, Adam). Comparisons do not exist in nature,
> except in the mind of intelligent beings.
>
> Second: Some Darwinists claim that there is a natural relation present
> between the things they are differentiating, and that this relation is
> competition (see Darwin, Dawkins).
> Looking systematically at the theoretically possible ways in which
> organisms can influence each others reproduction, I arrive at four
> possibilities.
>
[snip]
My conclusion is that if the space time continuum
was to warped as much as your logic, we'd all be
in another dimension/universe.
Boikat
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> First: The relation between the things differentiated is not a
>> description of a natural relation (where the one differentiated thing
>> influences the other in some way), but an artificial comparison (see
>> Howard Hershey, Boikat, Adam).
>
>My conclusion is that if the space time continuum
>was to warped as much as your logic, we'd all be
>in another dimension/universe.
You said that the relationship in natural selection is comparison,
that is your logic.
Nando
Dave Horn
news:mhcjetgchvrn06q36...@4ax.com...
While Nando has no logic, and is left with lying about the idea that the
biological community "at large" shares his rather vulgar view of Darwin's
work.
That's a fairly testable claim, and he hasn't provided a single piece of
evidence for it.
He lied.
howard hershey
----------
In article <l6qiet8gj3pabef5r...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
<onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> There are two standards that need to be employed to reject natural
> selection. The standard of systemacy, and the standard of natural
> relations for descriptive theories.
>
> Natural selection is commonly explained as differential reproductive
> success.
Natural selection is the differential reproductive success of phenotypes in
a population in a specified environment.
>
> First: The relation between the things differentiated is not a
> description of a natural relation (where the one differentiated thing
> influences the other in some way), but an artificial comparison (see
> Howard Hershey, Boikat, Adam). Comparisons do not exist in nature,
> except in the mind of intelligent beings.
This is simply strange. Comparisons most certainly do exist in nature. It
only takes an intelligent mind to observe and recognize their existence.
That I am shorter than an adult giraffe is a fact of nature. That I am
smarter than a rutabaga is a fact of nature. It does take an intelligent
observer to recognize these facts of nature. But that doesn't mean that
they don't exist in the absence of the observer.
>
> Second: Some Darwinists claim that there is a natural relation present
> between the things they are differentiating, and that this relation is
> competition (see Darwin, Dawkins).
Competition for reproductive success. That does not necessarily mean
competition against each other. It can mean competition against
environmental constraints. It most certainly does not invariably mean
direct extermination of one phenotype by the other. In reality, such direct
competition is generally insignificant compared to competition for survival
or reproduction against environmental constraints.
> Looking systematically at the theoretically possible ways in which
> organisms can influence each others reproduction, I arrive at four
> possibilities.
>
> Differentiating units A and B.
> A B
> + + Both reproduction increased when together. (mutual benefit)
>
> + - The one's reproduction increases at the cost of the other.
> (competition)
>
> - + same (competition)
>
> - - Both reproduction reduced when together. (mutual loss)
>
> 0 0 A net, no gain no loss in reproduction, when together. (neutral
> relationship)
>
> So Darwinists unsystematically focus on the relation that the one
> increases at the cost of the other (competition), in neglect of the
> other possible relations.
Natural *selection* requires differential reproductive success. In the case
of +/+, -/-, and 0/0 there is no differential reproductive success, no
significant phenotypic difference that *differentially* affects reproductive
success. Those cases where there is no differential reproductive success
are cases where selective neutrality exists. The changes in the frequency
of phenotypes where there is no selection is covered by the rules of chance.
Natural selection is not the inevitable result whenever there are two
different phenotypes.
> This prejudicial focus on competitive
> relationships is why natural selection is commonly explained as a
> "mechanism" that reduces variation (see Talk.origins faq -
> Introduction to evolutionary theory, Darwin).
>
> Please if any Darwinist would reply, state if you're a
> competitor-Darwinist or a comparison-Darwinist.
Those terms do not have real meaning. Natural selection involves a
comparison of phenotypes but is not the inevitable result of the existence
of two phenotypes. Phenotypes can be selectively neutral wrt each other.
Natural selection does involve the competition for reproductive success (and
requires that there *be* a difference in that metric for there to be natural
selection). It does not require direct competition against each other. Oh,
and remember the other requirements, such as being in a population (natural
selection usually involves variation within species, not between species)
and that the environment be held constant (or randomized). Natural
selection is not the relationship between predator and prey species. It
occurs within the predator population and within the prey population. It
does not occur between predator and prey.
> That means if you
> require a relation of competition between the things you are
> differentiating to call some event natural selection, or if you only
> require a "relation" of comparison between the things you are
> differentiating to call some event natural selection.
I am truly sorry that what biologists call natural selection is not the same
as what you thought it was. But I am afraid you will have to adhere to the
definition of selection that biologists have in order to talk about natural
selection intelligently.
>
> Nando
>
howard hershey
----------
In article <9ccfsb$sqv$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, "howard hershey"
<hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>
> ----------
> In article <l6qiet8gj3pabef5r...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
> <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> There are two standards that need to be employed to reject natural
>> selection. The standard of systemacy, and the standard of natural
>> relations for descriptive theories.
>>
>> Natural selection is commonly explained as differential reproductive
>> success.
>
> Natural selection is the differential reproductive success of phenotypes in
> a population in a specified environment.
That should be "alternative phenotypes", not just any two randomly chosen
ones.
Two different alternative phenotypes.
Nando Ronteltap
>In article <l6qiet8gj3pabef5r...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
><onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> There are two standards that need to be employed to reject natural
>> selection. The standard of systemacy, and the standard of natural
>> relations for descriptive theories.
>>
>> Natural selection is commonly explained as differential reproductive
>> success.
>
>Natural selection is the differential reproductive success of phenotypes in
>a population in a specified environment.
Ok, and you know my criticism of that.
The things you are differentiating may well be diverging into
different environments. This makes your "specified environment" theory
false, since they inhabit different environments.
>>
>> First: The relation between the things differentiated is not a
>> description of a natural relation (where the one differentiated thing
>> influences the other in some way), but an artificial comparison (see
>> Howard Hershey, Boikat, Adam). Comparisons do not exist in nature,
>> except in the mind of intelligent beings.
>
>This is simply strange. Comparisons most certainly do exist in nature. It
>only takes an intelligent mind to observe and recognize their existence.
>That I am shorter than an adult giraffe is a fact of nature. That I am
>smarter than a rutabaga is a fact of nature. It does take an intelligent
>observer to recognize these facts of nature. But that doesn't mean that
>they don't exist in the absence of the observer.
Well I'm astounded of you as you are of me. I will try and explain it
then. Here's what I do when I manufacture a comparison. (more or less)
Length
Giraffe = 15
You = 6
_____________ -
9
You are 9 foot shorter then a giraffe. This 9 denotes the absence of
something (length). This something doesn't exist. That's why, AFAIK,
normally scientists say comparisons don't exist in nature.
That's not neccessarily true.
> no
>significant phenotypic difference that *differentially* affects reproductive
>success. Those cases where there is no differential reproductive success
>are cases where selective neutrality exists. The changes in the frequency
>of phenotypes where there is no selection is covered by the rules of chance.
>Natural selection is not the inevitable result whenever there are two
>different phenotypes.
>
>> This prejudicial focus on competitive
>> relationships is why natural selection is commonly explained as a
>> "mechanism" that reduces variation (see Talk.origins faq -
>> Introduction to evolutionary theory, Darwin).
>>
>> Please if any Darwinist would reply, state if you're a
>> competitor-Darwinist or a comparison-Darwinist.
>
>Those terms do not have real meaning.
I explain the meaning below, they have the meaning below.
> Natural selection involves a
>comparison of phenotypes but is not the inevitable result of the existence
>of two phenotypes. Phenotypes can be selectively neutral wrt each other.
>Natural selection does involve the competition for reproductive success (and
>requires that there *be* a difference in that metric for there to be natural
>selection). It does not require direct competition against each other. Oh,
>and remember the other requirements, such as being in a population (natural
>selection usually involves variation within species, not between species)
>and that the environment be held constant (or randomized). Natural
>selection is not the relationship between predator and prey species. It
>occurs within the predator population and within the prey population. It
>does not occur between predator and prey.
>
>> That means if you
>> require a relation of competition between the things you are
>> differentiating to call some event natural selection, or if you only
>> require a "relation" of comparison between the things you are
>> differentiating to call some event natural selection.
>
>I am truly sorry that what biologists call natural selection is not the same
>as what you thought it was. But I am afraid you will have to adhere to the
>definition of selection that biologists have in order to talk about natural
>selection intelligently.
Well in my terms you are a comparison-Darwinist, because the
relationship between the things you use in natural selection is
comparison. For me as a Darwinism-criticizer I think it's very
important to know if I am dealing with a comparison-Darwinist or with
a competition-Darwinist.
Nando
CHMC
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in article
<9ccfsb$sqv$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>
>
> ----------
> In article <l6qiet8gj3pabef5r...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
> <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > There are two standards that need to be employed to reject natural
> > selection. The standard of systemacy, and the standard of natural
> > relations for descriptive theories.
> >
> > Natural selection is commonly explained as differential reproductive
> > success.
>
> Natural selection is the differential reproductive success of phenotypes
in
> a population in a specified environment.
> >
> > First: The relation between the things differentiated is not a
> > description of a natural relation (where the one differentiated thing
> > influences the other in some way), but an artificial comparison (see
> > Howard Hershey, Boikat, Adam). Comparisons do not exist in nature,
> > except in the mind of intelligent beings.
>
> This is simply strange. Comparisons most certainly do exist in nature.
It
> only takes an intelligent mind to observe and recognize their existence.
> That I am shorter than an adult giraffe is a fact of nature. That I am
> smarter than a rutabaga is a fact of nature. It does take an intelligent
> observer to recognize these facts of nature. But that doesn't mean that
> they don't exist in the absence of the observer.
Nando, I am interested in what you think would happen if, say, an antelope
was born with a mutation that allowed it to run faster than it's fellow
herd members. Wouldn't you think it would most likely avoid gettting
caught by lions better then it's slower cousins? Wouldn't you think that
it's children would tend to live to reproductive age more often then slower
antelope?
<snip>
Adam
Nando Ronteltap
>> > There are two standards that need to be employed to reject natural
Yes I would think that, but given the complexity of organic life I
could very likely be wrong. I could make a systematic model of all
possible outcomes I can think of when a mutation like that happens. I
can imagine that fast antelopes trip and fall more often for instance.
I can imagine that slower antelopes in combination with faster
antilopes enhances reproduction of both slow and fast antelopes. etc.
etc.
I think you are a competitor-Darwinist. You need there to be direct
competition to call some event natural selection.
Nando
Justin Cobb
> >> Natural selection is commonly explained as differential reproductive
> >> success.
> >
> >Natural selection is the differential reproductive success of phenotypes
in
> >a population in a specified environment.
>
> Ok, and you know my criticism of that.
>
> The things you are differentiating may well be diverging into
> different environments. This makes your "specified environment" theory
> false, since they inhabit different environments.
"In a population" means that they are in the same population, and, thus,
they inhabit the same environment. A population can be described as an
interbreeding group of organisms living in the same geographical area. For
example, two fish of the same species in one pond are members of one
population, whereas two fish of the same species living in different ponds
are members of different populations. Thus, the "specific environment"
'theory,' as you call it, is not false.
<snip>
> >Natural *selection* requires differential reproductive success. In the
case
> >of +/+, -/-, and 0/0 there is no differential reproductive success,
>
> That's not neccessarily true.
Organisms invovled in a mutualistic ("+/+") relationship may have a fitness
advantage over those who do not live in a mutualistic relationship.
Organisms involved in a "-/-" relationship may endure fitness costs which
those who are not involved in such relationships do not have to deal with.
Thus, such a relationship is usually disadvantageous in terms of fitness,
unless there is some sort of benefit gained which offsets the costs.
Organisms involved in a "0/0" relationship would probably be at an advantage
in comparison to those in "-/-" or playing the "-" role in a "+/-"
relationship (e.g., parasitic hosts). "0/0" would likely be a disadvantage
in comparison to those on the 'receiving' end of a "+/-" or those involved
in a mutualistic relationship.
<snip>
> Well in my terms you are a comparison-Darwinist, because the
> relationship between the things you use in natural selection is
> comparison. For me as a Darwinism-criticizer I think it's very
> important to know if I am dealing with a comparison-Darwinist or with
> a competition-Darwinist.
This is a false dichotomy. Determining relative fitness entails a
comparison of organisms' reproductive success with respect to the rest of
the population. This differential reproductive success is determined by
competition within the population.
Justin Cobb
CHMC
Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<abpjetk6hv3mfugv3...@4ax.com>...
OK.
> I could make a systematic model of all
> possible outcomes I can think of when a mutation like that happens. I
> can imagine that fast antelopes trip and fall more often for instance.
Good point. In this case Natural selection would work against the faster
Antelope.
> I can imagine that slower antelopes in combination with faster
> antilopes enhances reproduction of both slow and fast antelopes.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this.
etc.
> etc.
>
> I think you are a competitor-Darwinist. You need there to be direct
> competition to call some event natural selection.
>
I was just trying to figure out if you are denying whether or not there is
such thing as natural selection. It doesn't look like you are.
Boikat
A "comparison" based upon the observation that
"some portion of the population survived, and some
did not". Why is reporting an observation a
problem?
Boikat
WickedDyno
wrote:
> Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> <abpjetk6hv3mfugv3...@4ax.com>...
<s>
> > I can imagine that slower antelopes in combination with faster
> > antilopes enhances reproduction of both slow and fast antelopes.
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't understand this.
Neither did he. There's not a bit of meaning in it.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Nando Ronteltap
>> I think you are a competitor-Darwinist. You need there to be direct
>> competition to call some event natural selection.
>>
>I was just trying to figure out if you are denying whether or not there is
>such thing as natural selection. It doesn't look like you are.
Well I am denying/rejecting it, hence the title of the thread.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
<snip>
>
>> >> Natural selection is commonly explained as differential reproductive
>> >> success.
>> >
>> >Natural selection is the differential reproductive success of phenotypes
>in
>> >a population in a specified environment.
>>
>> Ok, and you know my criticism of that.
>>
>> The things you are differentiating may well be diverging into
>> different environments. This makes your "specified environment" theory
>> false, since they inhabit different environments.
>
>"In a population" means that they are in the same population, and, thus,
>they inhabit the same environment. A population can be described as an
>interbreeding group of organisms living in the same geographical area. For
>example, two fish of the same species in one pond are members of one
>population, whereas two fish of the same species living in different ponds
>are members of different populations. Thus, the "specific environment"
>'theory,' as you call it, is not false.
Howard doesn't require them to live in the same pond, he just requires
them to live in similar ponds. He explained this to me, that bacteria
on separate feedingplates, or a situation like that of being
physically separate out in the wild, can still be called natural
selection.
Specific environment theory is false when it is characteristic that
they are diverging by what is differentiated. Environment exists in
respect to the unit of selection, so with divergence the point is that
they inhabit different environments. At the very least it is
counterintuitive to say they inhabit a specific environment when in
fact they are diverging. It's simply false IMO.
>
><snip>
>
>> >Natural *selection* requires differential reproductive success. In the
>case
>> >of +/+, -/-, and 0/0 there is no differential reproductive success,
>>
>> That's not neccessarily true.
>
>Organisms invovled in a mutualistic ("+/+") relationship may have a fitness
>advantage over those who do not live in a mutualistic relationship.
>
>Organisms involved in a "-/-" relationship may endure fitness costs which
>those who are not involved in such relationships do not have to deal with.
>Thus, such a relationship is usually disadvantageous in terms of fitness,
>unless there is some sort of benefit gained which offsets the costs.
>
>Organisms involved in a "0/0" relationship would probably be at an advantage
>in comparison to those in "-/-" or playing the "-" role in a "+/-"
>relationship (e.g., parasitic hosts). "0/0" would likely be a disadvantage
>in comparison to those on the 'receiving' end of a "+/-" or those involved
>in a mutualistic relationship.
The point was that +/+ can mean +100/+70 and -/- can be -50/-20. There
would still be a difference in reproductive success in +/+ and -/-
relationships.
><snip>
>
>> Well in my terms you are a comparison-Darwinist, because the
>> relationship between the things you use in natural selection is
>> comparison. For me as a Darwinism-criticizer I think it's very
>> important to know if I am dealing with a comparison-Darwinist or with
>> a competition-Darwinist.
>
>This is a false dichotomy. Determining relative fitness entails a
>comparison of organisms' reproductive success with respect to the rest of
>the population. This differential reproductive success is determined by
>competition within the population.
As before with the ponds, Howard doesn't require competition, he can
call physically separate populations being involved in natural
selection. You are a competition-Darwinist. Your Darwinism is false
because of lack of systemacy in noting the relationships between units
of selection, as explained before.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
They all die. Would this be physics, your answer would immediately be
noted as false for saying that. Regrettably such standards don't apply
with Darwinists.
If you base natural selection on comparison, then you are screwed
because comparisons don't exist in nature.
If you base natural selection on competition, then you are screwed
because you neglect divergence, and neglect +/+ -/- 0/0 relationships
between the things you differentiate.
There is no way out of this. Natural selection is false by these
standards, which is why Darwinists deny those standards.
Nando
Boikat
To deny something that has actually been observed
is to deny reality. That is a sign of insanity.
Boikat
Boikat
>
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >>
> >> >> First: The relation between the things differentiated is not a
> >> >> description of a natural relation (where the one differentiated thing
> >> >> influences the other in some way), but an artificial comparison (see
> >> >> Howard Hershey, Boikat, Adam).
> >> >
> >> >My conclusion is that if the space time continuum
> >> >was to warped as much as your logic, we'd all be
> >> >in another dimension/universe.
> >>
> >> You said that the relationship in natural selection is comparison,
> >> that is your logic.
> >>
> >
> >A "comparison" based upon the observation that
> >"some portion of the population survived, and some
> >did not". Why is reporting an observation a
> >problem?
>
> They all die.
Survive to reproduce, ding-dong. Do try to keep
up and remember the subject is biological
evolution. Of course any given organism will
eventually die. So obviously I ws referring to
surviving to reproduce. You've been whining about
this long enough to know that's what was being
referred to, so you are either being obstinate or
you are attempting to be deceptive.
> Would this be physics, your answer would immediately be
> noted as false for saying that. Regrettably such standards don't apply
> with Darwinists.
No, it indicates that you are too willing to "jump
the fence" when it comes to any excuse, no matter
how stupid, to attempt to evade a point.
>
> If you base natural selection on comparison, then you are screwed
> because comparisons don't exist in nature.
Yes it does, though not as a conscious result of
any intelligent activity. This has been explained
to you before, but you are apparently to obstinate
or dishonest in not understanding it.
>
> If you base natural selection on competition, then you are screwed
> because you neglect divergence, and neglect +/+ -/- 0/0 relationships
> between the things you differentiate.
Divergence is not neglected, and whether or not
there is a "+ or -" is relative to the
environmental factors ("+" being able to survive
to reproduce, "-" meaning not surviving long
enough to reproduce). This too has been explained
to you, but you are being either obstinate or
dishonest in not understanding it.
>
> There is no way out of this. Natural selection is false by these
> standards, which is why Darwinists deny those standards.
Since your premise is wrong, so is your
conclusion. The only argument you have is
attempting to weasel around with words. Try
again.
Boikat
Dave Horn
news:pp4letsksv781ufh1...@4ax.com...
Nando is a specialist at denial.
But there are some things that won't go away:
[Begin respost from "Nando thinks Jews are bad"]
....or am I misreading this?
[Piggybacking]
"howard hershey" <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:9ccgl8$svh$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
>
> In article <nptietcm7hon65plt...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
> <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
[Snip]
> > Also when reading some passages in the Bible, the thought
> > repeatedly occurs to me that the Jews killed Christ, and that
> > therefore Jews are bad.
>
> I don't.
>
> > Correction on these thoughts then follows, but still I think
> > quite normal thoughts like those are what racism in
> > conjuction with Darwinism, and anti-semitism in conjuction
> > with Christianity, mainly stems from.
Nando does not tell us what provides the "correction" with respect to these
"quite normal thoughts."
The Jews did not kill Jesus - assuming the events described in the Gospels
happened at all or by any stretch. The Romans carried out executions. They
had the temporal authority. This is what is gathered by a rational reading
of the accounts and, consequently, the conclusion that "Jews are bad" is
*not* a part of "quite normal thoughts" that would come from a careful
reading of the Gospels and an understanding of the history of the time.
Nando has no understanding of these events, and is far from having "quite
normal thoughts." Nando is at least a closet anti-semite.
[End repost]
[Begin repost of a Nando lie]
"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:16k6et81c1l106hqg...@4ax.com...
> "Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
What Nando snipped is the actual point and the actual challenge, that is,
his claim that the biology community at large shares the following opinion:
> If Darwin's work was not a piece of revolting stinking shit
> for as far as abstract conceptual models go, then simple
> questions about Darwinism could be answered.
The fact is that simple questions about Darwinism can be answered. The
problem is that Nando is not interested in the answers, and that is why
there is no point arguing with him on this point. It is also why I, after a
quarter century studying biology both formally and informally, give no
credit for Nando's opinions. I had said I don't care about them, and so...
[Snip remainder]
The challenge is for Nando to provide evidence that the biological community
shares the above stated opinion of Darwin's work. I have never seen that
evidence. The biological community nor the more broadly-based scientific
community shares this opinion. Nando had no basis to make the claim. He
lied.
It's as simple as that.
[End repost]
Richard Harter
<amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
>In article <01c0cf6f$896cc3e0$2f524f92@p802>, "CHMC" <ch...@chmc.org>
>wrote:
>
>> Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
>> <abpjetk6hv3mfugv3...@4ax.com>...
><s>
>> > I can imagine that slower antelopes in combination with faster
>> > antilopes enhances reproduction of both slow and fast antelopes.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I don't understand this.
>
>Neither did he. There's not a bit of meaning in it.
I would guess that it means something like this: He can imagine a
situation where diversity in a group enhances the reproductive success
of all of the members of the group. A simple example, albeit
economic, is our own species; we differentiate into many different
occupations. The issue comes up in social species and in symbiotic
relationships.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
You know you're getting old when you stoop to tie your shoes and
wonder what else you can do while you're down there. - George Burns
--
Posted from mail.sbtc.net [137.118.129.5]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Andrew Glasgow
(Richard Harter) wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2001 02:47:58 -0400, in talk.origins WickedDyno
> <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <01c0cf6f$896cc3e0$2f524f92@p802>, "CHMC" <ch...@chmc.org>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> >> <abpjetk6hv3mfugv3...@4ax.com>...
> ><s>
> >> > I can imagine that slower antelopes in combination with faster
> >> > antilopes enhances reproduction of both slow and fast antelopes.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry, but I don't understand this.
> >
> >Neither did he. There's not a bit of meaning in it.
>
> I would guess that it means something like this: He can imagine a
> situation where diversity in a group enhances the reproductive success
> of all of the members of the group. A simple example, albeit
> economic, is our own species; we differentiate into many different
> occupations. The issue comes up in social species and in symbiotic
> relationships.
That's irrelevant. The important factor in the above scenario is the
relative advantage that the fast antelopes have over the slow antelopes.
Richard Harter
<am...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <3aeaf118...@mail.SullyButtes.net>, c...@tiac.net
>(Richard Harter) wrote:
[snip]
>> >> Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
>> >> <abpjetk6hv3mfugv3...@4ax.com>...
>> >> > I can imagine that slower antelopes in combination with faster
>> >> > antilopes enhances reproduction of both slow and fast antelopes.
>> >>
>> >> I'm sorry, but I don't understand this.
>> >
>> >Neither did he. There's not a bit of meaning in it.
>>
>> I would guess that it means something like this: He can imagine a
>> situation where diversity in a group enhances the reproductive success
>> of all of the members of the group. A simple example, albeit
>> economic, is our own species; we differentiate into many different
>> occupations. The issue comes up in social species and in symbiotic
>> relationships.
>
>That's irrelevant. The important factor in the above scenario is the
>relative advantage that the fast antelopes have over the slow antelopes.
Jeez. Pay attention. The question is at hand was: What did Nando
mean; did his statement have meaning rather than was it was correct.
He is suggesting (in effect) that there might not be a selective
advantage of fast over slow when both are present. To cavalierly
assert that the fast have an advantage over the slow without a
detailed examination of all the relevant factors and trade-offs is
pernicous hyper-darwinist, ultra-adaptationist, just-so-storyism.
Nando Ronteltap
Justin Cobb
"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:855letc63citpb0lk...@4ax.com...
If two different populations live in different but similar geographical
areas, they can diverge and undergo speciation. However, I should note that
geographical separation is not absolutely necessary for speciation to occur.
Perhaps I'm not understanding the intent of your argument.
OK, I see what you mean now.
>
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Well in my terms you are a comparison-Darwinist, because the
> >> relationship between the things you use in natural selection is
> >> comparison. For me as a Darwinism-criticizer I think it's very
> >> important to know if I am dealing with a comparison-Darwinist or with
> >> a competition-Darwinist.
> >
> >This is a false dichotomy. Determining relative fitness entails a
> >comparison of organisms' reproductive success with respect to the rest of
> >the population. This differential reproductive success is determined by
> >competition within the population.
>
> As before with the ponds, Howard doesn't require competition, he can
> call physically separate populations being involved in natural
> selection. You are a competition-Darwinist. Your Darwinism is false
> because of lack of systemacy in noting the relationships between units
> of selection, as explained before.
I'm not sure what you mean by "lack of systemacy in noting the relationships
between units of selection." Please expand on this. Are you referring to
the fact that I referred to organisms, rather than genes, as units of
selection? (Yes, I should have specified that genes, not organism itself,
are what are subject to selection pressures.)
Justin Cobb
>
> Nando
>
Boikat
I think that everyone, except Nando, understands
that the "value" of any given trait is dependent
upon the environmental factors present at any
given time.
Boikat
Boikat
>
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry to say, you are just too dumb.
Projection.
Boikat
Nando Ronteltap
>> As before with the ponds, Howard doesn't require competition, he can
>> call physically separate populations being involved in natural
>> selection. You are a competition-Darwinist. Your Darwinism is false
>> because of lack of systemacy in noting the relationships between units
>> of selection, as explained before.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "lack of systemacy in noting the relationships
>between units of selection." Please expand on this. Are you referring to
>the fact that I referred to organisms, rather than genes, as units of
>selection? (Yes, I should have specified that genes, not organism itself,
>are what are subject to selection pressures.)
There are two standards that need to be employed to reject natural
selection. The standard of systemacy, and the standard of natural
relations for descriptive theories.
Natural selection is commonly explained as differential reproductive
success.
First: The relation between the things differentiated is not a
description of a natural relation (where the one differentiated thing
influences the other in some way), but an artificial comparison (see
Howard Hershey, Boikat, Adam). Comparisons do not exist in nature,
except in the mind of intelligent beings.
Second: Some Darwinists claim that there is a natural relation present
between the things they are differentiating, and that this relation is
competition (see Darwin, Dawkins).
Looking systematically at the theoretically possible ways in which
organisms can influence each others reproduction, I arrive at four
possibilities.
Differentiating units A and B.
A B
+ + Both reproduction increased when together. (mutual benefit)
+ - The one's reproduction increases at the cost of the other.
(competition)
- + same (competition)
- - Both reproduction reduced when together. (mutual loss)
0 0 A net, no gain no loss in reproduction, when together. (neutral
relationship)
So Darwinists unsystematically focus on the relation that the one
increases at the cost of the other (competition), in neglect of the
other possible relations. This prejudicial focus on competitive
relationships is why natural selection is commonly explained as a
"mechanism" that reduces variation (see Talk.origins faq -
Introduction to evolutionary theory, Darwin).
Please if any Darwinist would reply, state if you're a
competitor-Darwinist or a comparison-Darwinist. That means if you
require a relation of competition between the things you are
differentiating to call some event natural selection, or if you only
require a "relation" of comparison between the things you are
differentiating to call some event natural selection.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> Well I am denying/rejecting it, hence the title of the thread.
>
>To deny something that has actually been observed
>is to deny reality. That is a sign of insanity.
Comparisons have not been observed, they have been manufactured by
observers. Simply put, you want me to believe that there is some
mystical connection between things that have no physical relationship
with each other whatsoever. As with the fish in separate ponds, or
bacteria on separate feeding plates. No physical relationship
whatsoever, but still natural selection. Obviously this means natural
selection is pseudoscience.
"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted
object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of
the higher animals,directly follows. There is a grandeur in this view
of life," gibber gibber gibber
(C. Gibber, The Origin of Gibberish by Means of Authoritive Flubber,
1859)
Nando
Justin Cobb
> "Justin Cobb" <jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> As before with the ponds, Howard doesn't require competition, he can
> >> call physically separate populations being involved in natural
> >> selection. You are a competition-Darwinist. Your Darwinism is false
> >> because of lack of systemacy in noting the relationships between units
> >> of selection, as explained before.
> >
> >I'm not sure what you mean by "lack of systemacy in noting the
relationships
> >between units of selection." Please expand on this. Are you referring
to
> >the fact that I referred to organisms, rather than genes, as units of
> >selection? (Yes, I should have specified that genes, not organism
itself,
> >are what are subject to selection pressures.)
>
> There are two standards that need to be employed to reject natural
> selection. The standard of systemacy, and the standard of natural
> relations for descriptive theories.
The only thing there needs to be in order to falsify natural selection is
empirical evidence which demonstrates that natural selection does not occur.
Such evidence has never been found.
>
> Natural selection is commonly explained as differential reproductive
> success.
>
> First: The relation between the things differentiated is not a
> description of a natural relation (where the one differentiated thing
> influences the other in some way), but an artificial comparison (see
> Howard Hershey, Boikat, Adam). Comparisons do not exist in nature,
> except in the mind of intelligent beings.
Moot point.
Organisms-or more precisely, genes-do not have to actively make comparisons
of fitness relative to one another for natural selection to occur.
Comparisons are made by scientists who employ these comparisons in order to
determine the adaptive value of a particular phenotype or set of phenotypes.
>
> Second: Some Darwinists claim that there is a natural relation present
> between the things they are differentiating, and that this relation is
> competition (see Darwin, Dawkins).
> Looking systematically at the theoretically possible ways in which
> organisms can influence each others reproduction, I arrive at four
> possibilities.
>
> Differentiating units A and B.
> A B
> + + Both reproduction increased when together. (mutual benefit)
>
> + - The one's reproduction increases at the cost of the other.
> (competition)
>
> - + same (competition)
>
> - - Both reproduction reduced when together. (mutual loss)
>
> 0 0 A net, no gain no loss in reproduction, when together. (neutral
> relationship)
>
> So Darwinists unsystematically focus on the relation that the one
> increases at the cost of the other (competition), in neglect of the
> other possible relations. This prejudicial focus on competitive
> relationships is why natural selection is commonly explained as a
> "mechanism" that reduces variation (see Talk.origins faq -
> Introduction to evolutionary theory, Darwin).
First off, I read the FAQ to which you referred me. I've covered all of
that material in my coursework so maybe it is you who needs to take a look
at it.
Second, to answer the above argument, competition occurs because more
offspring are born in a given population than have the opportunity to
reproduce for whatever reason (e.g., shortage of potential mates, death
before reaching reproductive maturity, etc.). The "purpose" of life,
biologically speaking, is for an organism to replicate its genes in the gene
pool. An organism born with a beneficial mutation will have an advantage in
this respect. For example, if a population is subject to predation by fast
animals, a mutation for faster running speed will benefit the organism in
that it will be less prone to being eaten. Thus, it has a higher
probability of surviving to reproduce in comparison with slower members
(i.e., those without the beneficial mutation) of its population. Therefore,
it will likely have higher direct fitness than that of the slower members.
Also, fitness of a given gene is not entirely based on direct fitness.
Indirect fitness plays a role, as well. For example, if I decide not to
have children, my genes will still benefit, given that my brother or sister
has children, because I share genes with my brother and sister. Selection
for their genes, which would benefit my inclusive fitness since we share
genes, is known as kin selection. Kin selection can explain things such as
altruism, for example. According to Hamilton's rule:
rb > c
My genes will benefit from altruistic behavior if the product of the
benefits and the coefficient of relatedness (proportion of genes shared by
both members of an altruistic relationship) exceed the costs of altruism.
Even with indirect selection, GENES ARE STILL COMPETING TO BE REPLICATED IN
THE GENE POOL. It is not competitive relationships, in general, between
organisms that are studied. It is competition between alleles that is
important in studying natural selection. In fact, natural selection can be
defined as sort of a competition between alleles (via differential
reproductive success). The organism is ephemeral-it is a vehicle that the
genes "use" to replicate themselves. I would recommend that you read "The
Selfish Gene," by Richard Dawkins. In this book, Dawkins goes into detail
on how evolution occurs not at the level of the organism but, rather, on the
level of genes.
As for "-/-" relationships, please give me an actual example. I personally
know of no organisms who have adapted using such a strategy involving a
mutual loss relationship.
Justin Cobb
<snip>
Boikat
>
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> >> Well I am denying/rejecting it, hence the title of the thread.
> >
> >To deny something that has actually been observed
> >is to deny reality. That is a sign of insanity.
>
> Comparisons have not been observed, they have been manufactured by
> observers.
Bullshit.
> Simply put, you want me to believe that there is some
> mystical
What's "Mystical" about some portion of a
population surviving to reproduce and some other
portion not surviving to reproduce?
> connection between things that have no physical relationship
> with each other whatsoever.
So, you are saying organisms exist independently
of their environment? That boggles the mind.
> As with the fish in separate ponds, or
> bacteria on separate feeding plates. No physical relationship
> whatsoever, but still natural selection. Obviously this means natural
> selection is pseudoscience.
Besides the claim that natural selection is
"pseudo science" being bullshit, the rest of your
"logic" is also bullshit since if they are the
same species (presumably) and since each
individual pond or "feeding plate" represents a
different environment which contain representative
populations of the same species, your "problem" is
a non issue. Also, two populations of the same
species does not have to occupy the same pond,
petri dish or whatever other environment you want
to use, in order for natural selection to occur
within that species as a whole, since each
population is still subject to respective
environmental factors. If you think otherwise,
you are slower on the uptake than I give you
credit for. And that's going some.
>
> "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted
> object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of
> the higher animals,directly follows. There is a grandeur in this view
> of life," gibber gibber gibber
>
> (C. Gibber, The Origin of Gibberish by Means of Authoritive Flubber,
> 1859)
You are a case in point when it comes to
"gibberish".
Nando Ronteltap
>"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9tdmet0lgv6isqk6g...@4ax.com...
>> "Justin Cobb" <jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> >"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> As before with the ponds, Howard doesn't require competition, he can
>> >> call physically separate populations being involved in natural
>> >> selection. You are a competition-Darwinist. Your Darwinism is false
>> >> because of lack of systemacy in noting the relationships between units
>> >> of selection, as explained before.
>> >
>> >I'm not sure what you mean by "lack of systemacy in noting the
>relationships
>> >between units of selection." Please expand on this. Are you referring
>to
>> >the fact that I referred to organisms, rather than genes, as units of
>> >selection? (Yes, I should have specified that genes, not organism
>itself,
>> >are what are subject to selection pressures.)
>>
>> There are two standards that need to be employed to reject natural
>> selection. The standard of systemacy, and the standard of natural
>> relations for descriptive theories.
>
>The only thing there needs to be in order to falsify natural selection is
>empirical evidence which demonstrates that natural selection does not occur.
>Such evidence has never been found.
No comparison has ever been found in nature.
>> Natural selection is commonly explained as differential reproductive
>> success.
>>
>> First: The relation between the things differentiated is not a
>> description of a natural relation (where the one differentiated thing
>> influences the other in some way), but an artificial comparison (see
>> Howard Hershey, Boikat, Adam). Comparisons do not exist in nature,
>> except in the mind of intelligent beings.
>
>Moot point.
>
>Organisms-or more precisely, genes-do not have to actively make comparisons
>of fitness relative to one another for natural selection to occur.
>Comparisons are made by scientists who employ these comparisons in order to
>determine the adaptive value of a particular phenotype or set of phenotypes.
It's not a moot point since Howard, Boikat, and Adam say that these
comparisons have an indipendent existence from the observer, they are
comparison-Darwinists. So since you disagree with them you should be a
competition-Darwinist.
>> Second: Some Darwinists claim that there is a natural relation present
>> between the things they are differentiating, and that this relation is
>> competition (see Darwin, Dawkins).
>> Looking systematically at the theoretically possible ways in which
>> organisms can influence each others reproduction, I arrive at four
>> possibilities.
>>
>> Differentiating units A and B.
>> A B
>> + + Both reproduction increased when together. (mutual benefit)
>>
>> + - The one's reproduction increases at the cost of the other.
>> (competition)
>>
>> - + same (competition)
>>
>> - - Both reproduction reduced when together. (mutual loss)
>>
>> 0 0 A net, no gain no loss in reproduction, when together. (neutral
>> relationship)
>>
>> So Darwinists unsystematically focus on the relation that the one
>> increases at the cost of the other (competition), in neglect of the
>> other possible relations. This prejudicial focus on competitive
>> relationships is why natural selection is commonly explained as a
>> "mechanism" that reduces variation (see Talk.origins faq -
>> Introduction to evolutionary theory, Darwin).
>
>First off, I read the FAQ to which you referred me. I've covered all of
>that material in my coursework so maybe it is you who needs to take a look
>at it.
You realise I hope, that you make a meaningless claim to authority
here.
>Second, to answer the above argument, competition occurs because more
>offspring are born in a given population than have the opportunity to
>reproduce for whatever reason (e.g., shortage of potential mates, death
>before reaching reproductive maturity, etc.).
Like I said, you are a competition-Darwinist.
> The "purpose" of life,
>biologically speaking, is for an organism to replicate its genes in the gene
>pool. An organism born with a beneficial mutation will have an advantage in
>this respect. For example, if a population is subject to predation by fast
>animals, a mutation for faster running speed will benefit the organism in
>that it will be less prone to being eaten. Thus, it has a higher
>probability of surviving to reproduce in comparison with slower members
>(i.e., those without the beneficial mutation) of its population. Therefore,
>it will likely have higher direct fitness than that of the slower members.
Bladibla. You unsystematically focus on a +/- relationship between
organisms, like I said competition-Darwinists do.
Maybe you excellently demonstrate your mastery over what you have
learned in your courses, you do not answer my point however of being
unsystematic. You completely ignore my point. Very, very strange.
>Also, fitness of a given gene is not entirely based on direct fitness.
>Indirect fitness plays a role, as well. For example, if I decide not to
>have children, my genes will still benefit, given that my brother or sister
>has children, because I share genes with my brother and sister. Selection
>for their genes, which would benefit my inclusive fitness since we share
>genes, is known as kin selection. Kin selection can explain things such as
>altruism, for example. According to Hamilton's rule:
Kin-selection, a racist favourite interpretation of evolutionary
theory. The theory that there is some mystical link between genes that
are the same, besides reproduction.
>rb > c
>
>My genes will benefit from altruistic behavior if the product of the
>benefits and the coefficient of relatedness (proportion of genes shared by
>both members of an altruistic relationship) exceed the costs of altruism.
>Even with indirect selection, GENES ARE STILL COMPETING TO BE REPLICATED IN
>THE GENE POOL.
YES YOU ARE A COMPETITION-DARWINIST THAT IS WHY YOU IGNORE
RELATIONSHIPS OF MUTUAL BENEFIT AND MUTUAL LOSS BETWEEN ORGANISMS.
You are clearly not answering my point, but just throwing up what you
have learned.
> It is not competitive relationships, in general, between
>organisms that are studied. It is competition between alleles that is
>important in studying natural selection.
That Darwinists after 140 years still don't know what the unit of
selection is makes it very hard to criticize the theory. I used the
examples of a relationship between A and B. I didn't say they were
organisms, they could be allelles or whatever, my argument still
stands.
> In fact, natural selection can be
>defined as sort of a competition between alleles (via differential
>reproductive success). The organism is ephemeral-it is a vehicle that the
>genes "use" to replicate themselves. I would recommend that you read "The
>Selfish Gene," by Richard Dawkins. In this book, Dawkins goes into detail
>on how evolution occurs not at the level of the organism but, rather, on the
>level of genes.
A favourite book of the British National Front. Reference me a
scientific abstract of that book and maybe I'll read that. I will not
go interpreting the words of a Darwinist mystic like Dawkins, and then
be accused of misinterpreting his words. Alas such does not exist
because Darwinists are anti-science.
>As for "-/-" relationships, please give me an actual example. I personally
>know of no organisms who have adapted using such a strategy involving a
>mutual loss relationship.
Nature is free, it doesn't abide by Darwinism. Such -/- relationships,
where when together mutual loss in reproduction occurs, exist
everywhere in nature. You are ignoring those relations by focusing on
competitive +/- relationships.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>
>> >> Well I am denying/rejecting it, hence the title of the thread.
>> >
>> >To deny something that has actually been observed
>> >is to deny reality. That is a sign of insanity.
>>
>> Comparisons have not been observed, they have been manufactured by
>> observers.
>
>Bullshit.
Cowshit, horseshit, pigshit, chickenshit. A mystical bond of
comparison exists between all shit.
Nando
Boikat
I do not think that the word "mystical" means what
you think it means. Or is this another example of
you making up your own definition of a word so you
can weasel around supporting your asinine claims?
Boikat
Dave Horn
news:3AEC051B...@bellsouth.net...
Yes, that was a definite evasion of the point. Typical Nando, who also says
that his readings of the Bible tell him that the Jews are bad because they
killed Jesus and also says that the "biology community" agrees with him that
the work of Darwin was a "revolting piece of stinking shit."
Of course, he tries to avoid having to support either of those claims, too,
when challenged.
Justin Cobb
<snip>
> >The only thing there needs to be in order to falsify natural selection is
> >empirical evidence which demonstrates that natural selection does not
occur.
> >Such evidence has never been found.
>
> No comparison has ever been found in nature.
And this would falsify natural selection how?
>
> >> Natural selection is commonly explained as differential reproductive
> >> success.
> >>
> >> First: The relation between the things differentiated is not a
> >> description of a natural relation (where the one differentiated thing
> >> influences the other in some way), but an artificial comparison (see
> >> Howard Hershey, Boikat, Adam). Comparisons do not exist in nature,
> >> except in the mind of intelligent beings.
> >
> >Moot point.
> >
> >Organisms-or more precisely, genes-do not have to actively make
comparisons
> >of fitness relative to one another for natural selection to occur.
> >Comparisons are made by scientists who employ these comparisons in order
to
> >determine the adaptive value of a particular phenotype or set of
phenotypes.
>
> It's not a moot point since Howard, Boikat, and Adam say that these
> comparisons have an indipendent existence from the observer, they are
> comparison-Darwinists. So since you disagree with them you should be a
> competition-Darwinist.
I read Howard's posts earlier in the thread, and I believe that his point
was-correct me if I'm wrong, Howard-that an individual with higher fitness
has higher fitness regardless of whether this fact is being observed by an
intelligent observer. What he is NOT saying is that organisms actively
compare themselves to one another. I don't see much disagreement between
Howard's views and mine.
<snip>
> >Second, to answer the above argument, competition occurs because more
> >offspring are born in a given population than have the opportunity to
> >reproduce for whatever reason (e.g., shortage of potential mates, death
> >before reaching reproductive maturity, etc.).
>
> Like I said, you are a competition-Darwinist.
>
> > The "purpose" of life,
> >biologically speaking, is for an organism to replicate its genes in the
gene
> >pool. An organism born with a beneficial mutation will have an advantage
in
> >this respect. For example, if a population is subject to predation by
fast
> >animals, a mutation for faster running speed will benefit the organism in
> >that it will be less prone to being eaten. Thus, it has a higher
> >probability of surviving to reproduce in comparison with slower members
> >(i.e., those without the beneficial mutation) of its population.
Therefore,
> >it will likely have higher direct fitness than that of the slower
members.
>
> Bladibla. You unsystematically focus on a +/- relationship between
> organisms, like I said competition-Darwinists do.
>
> Maybe you excellently demonstrate your mastery over what you have
> learned in your courses, you do not answer my point however of being
> unsystematic. You completely ignore my point. Very, very strange.
What was your point? What did you mean by "being unsystematic?"
You constantly say that I focus only on +/- relationships, but you have to
understand that with natural selection, genes are always in competition,
regardless of what the vehicle is doing. If two chimpanzees, for example,
are helping each other with something-whatever, I don't know what chimps
do-there is a mutual benefit for both chimps (and for their genes).
However, even though the chimps themselves are not actively engaging in
competition with other chimpanzees, their genes are competing with all other
genes to be replicated in the gene pool.
>
> >Also, fitness of a given gene is not entirely based on direct fitness.
> >Indirect fitness plays a role, as well. For example, if I decide not to
> >have children, my genes will still benefit, given that my brother or
sister
> >has children, because I share genes with my brother and sister.
Selection
> >for their genes, which would benefit my inclusive fitness since we share
> >genes, is known as kin selection. Kin selection can explain things such
as
> >altruism, for example. According to Hamilton's rule:
>
> Kin-selection, a racist favourite interpretation of evolutionary
> theory. The theory that there is some mystical link between genes that
> are the same, besides reproduction.
Are you calling me a racist, or are you inferring that kin selection is not
a valid concept in evolutionary biology?
>
> >rb > c
> >
> >My genes will benefit from altruistic behavior if the product of the
> >benefits and the coefficient of relatedness (proportion of genes shared
by
> >both members of an altruistic relationship) exceed the costs of altruism.
> >Even with indirect selection, GENES ARE STILL COMPETING TO BE REPLICATED
IN
> >THE GENE POOL.
>
> YES YOU ARE A COMPETITION-DARWINIST THAT IS WHY YOU IGNORE
> RELATIONSHIPS OF MUTUAL BENEFIT AND MUTUAL LOSS BETWEEN ORGANISMS.
I thought I had covered mutual benefit with my blurb on altruism and kin
selection. I honestly don't see how I didn't. However, I did type
something above in this post specifically discussing how a relationship with
mutual benefit for the organisms still translates into competition at the
gene level. Maybe that will clear things up.
Regarding mutual-loss relationships, I did ask for an example. Honestly, I
can't imagine how organisms in a relationship with mutual loss would benefit
in terms of fitness. Maybe if you could give me an example I could address
this issue.
>
> You are clearly not answering my point, but just throwing up what you
> have learned.
What exactly is your point? It seems to me that every time I think that I
understand what you are asking you "move the target" so to speak. I'm going
to ask point blank: are you "moving the target" or am I somehow missing
your point? If you would please clarify your point-even if you have to put
it in terms that a small child would understand-I would certainly appreciate
it. Don't reply with, "I already have," because, evidently, you haven't.
Otherwise, I would have already addressed your point to your satisfaction.
>
> > It is not competitive relationships, in general, between
> >organisms that are studied. It is competition between alleles that is
> >important in studying natural selection.
>
> That Darwinists after 140 years still don't know what the unit of
> selection is makes it very hard to criticize the theory. I used the
> examples of a relationship between A and B. I didn't say they were
> organisms, they could be allelles or whatever, my argument still
> stands.
The unit of selection is the gene.
>
> > In fact, natural selection can be
> >defined as sort of a competition between alleles (via differential
> >reproductive success). The organism is ephemeral-it is a vehicle that
the
> >genes "use" to replicate themselves. I would recommend that you read
"The
> >Selfish Gene," by Richard Dawkins. In this book, Dawkins goes into
detail
> >on how evolution occurs not at the level of the organism but, rather, on
the
> >level of genes.
>
> A favourite book of the British National Front. Reference me a
> scientific abstract of that book and maybe I'll read that. I will not
> go interpreting the words of a Darwinist mystic like Dawkins, and then
> be accused of misinterpreting his words. Alas such does not exist
> because Darwinists are anti-science.
I don't see how natural selection is unscientific. Would you care to
explain?
>
> >As for "-/-" relationships, please give me an actual example. I
personally
> >know of no organisms who have adapted using such a strategy involving a
> >mutual loss relationship.
>
> Nature is free, it doesn't abide by Darwinism. Such -/- relationships,
> where when together mutual loss in reproduction occurs, exist
> everywhere in nature. You are ignoring those relations by focusing on
> competitive +/- relationships.
As I have mentioned before, regardless of the social relationships at the
level of the organism, natural selection is based upon competition at the
level of genes. I don't see how this focuses only on competition between
organisms and ignores other relationships.
Justin Cobb
>
> Nando
>
Boikat
He's smart enough to know when he's painted
himself into a corner.
Boikat
howard hershey
----------
In article <l2ljet0lh3eu9f9nv...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
<onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "howard hershey" <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>>In article <l6qiet8gj3pabef5r...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
>><onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> There are two standards that need to be employed to reject natural
>>> selection. The standard of systemacy, and the standard of natural
>>> relations for descriptive theories.
>>>
>>> Natural selection is commonly explained as differential reproductive
>>> success.
>>
>>Natural selection is the differential reproductive success of phenotypes in
>>a population in a specified environment.
>
> Ok, and you know my criticism of that.
Your criticism is wrong-headed. It criticizes 'natural selection' because it
isn't what you, personally, want it to be.
>
> The things you are differentiating may well be diverging into
> different environments. This makes your "specified environment" theory
> false, since they inhabit different environments.
Natural selection is not about diverging into different environments; it is
about the ability of different variants to be 'successful' in *an*
environment. If the two variants exist in both environments, then
differential reproductive success has to be measured in both. And, of
course, you will not necessarily get the same relationship in both
environments. If one of the environments has no variants, then any
reproductive success or failure is purely chance in that environment.
>
>>>
>>> First: The relation between the things differentiated is not a
>>> description of a natural relation (where the one differentiated thing
>>> influences the other in some way), but an artificial comparison (see
>>> Howard Hershey, Boikat, Adam). Comparisons do not exist in nature,
>>> except in the mind of intelligent beings.
>>
>>This is simply strange. Comparisons most certainly do exist in nature. It
>>only takes an intelligent mind to observe and recognize their existence.
>>That I am shorter than an adult giraffe is a fact of nature. That I am
>>smarter than a rutabaga is a fact of nature. It does take an intelligent
>>observer to recognize these facts of nature. But that doesn't mean that
>>they don't exist in the absence of the observer.
>
> Well I'm astounded of you as you are of me. I will try and explain it
> then. Here's what I do when I manufacture a comparison. (more or less)
>
> Length
> Giraffe = 15
> You = 6
> _____________ -
> 9
>
> You are 9 foot shorter then a giraffe. This 9 denotes the absence of
> something (length). This something doesn't exist. That's why, AFAIK,
> normally scientists say comparisons don't exist in nature.
This gets weirder and weirder. If I were 9 ft. taller than something, would
that then represent a gain of 9 ft.? On what basis are you saying that
reality (namely that I am smaller than a giraffe) does not exist? Did I
stop being smaller than a giraffe at any point? I concede that it takes an
intelligence to *notice* and *report* a comparison. But that does not deny
the *reality* of the comparison in nature. I am shorter than a giraffe
whether you notice it or not.
Do you have some source that claims that comparative differences don't exist
in nature? If comparative differences exist in nature, then when I report
that comparative difference, I am reporting on reality.
>
>>> Second: Some Darwinists claim that there is a natural relation present
>>> between the things they are differentiating, and that this relation is
>>> competition (see Darwin, Dawkins).
>>
>>Competition for reproductive success. That does not necessarily mean
>>competition against each other. It can mean competition against
>>environmental constraints. It most certainly does not invariably mean
>>direct extermination of one phenotype by the other. In reality, such direct
>>competition is generally insignificant compared to competition for survival
>>or reproduction against environmental constraints.
>>
>>> Looking systematically at the theoretically possible ways in which
>>> organisms can influence each others reproduction, I arrive at four
>>> possibilities.
>>>
>>> Differentiating units A and B.
>>> A B
>>> + + Both reproduction increased when together. (mutual benefit)
>>>
>>> + - The one's reproduction increases at the cost of the other.
>>> (competition)
>>>
>>> - + same (competition)
>>>
>>> - - Both reproduction reduced when together. (mutual loss)
>>>
>>> 0 0 A net, no gain no loss in reproduction, when together. (neutral
>>> relationship)
>>>
>>> So Darwinists unsystematically focus on the relation that the one
>>> increases at the cost of the other (competition), in neglect of the
>>> other possible relations.
>>
>>Natural *selection* requires differential reproductive success. In the case
>>of +/+, -/-, and 0/0 there is no differential reproductive success,
>
> That's not neccessarily true.
Yes it is. Can you tell me how it is not? Those are cases where the
phenotypic difference does not effect (cause) the *differential*
reproductive success of one organism over the other. If they both fail
equally or succeed equally, there is no differential reproductive success.
>
>> no
>>significant phenotypic difference that *differentially* affects reproductive
>>success. Those cases where there is no differential reproductive success
>>are cases where selective neutrality exists. The changes in the frequency
>>of phenotypes where there is no selection is covered by the rules of chance.
>>Natural selection is not the inevitable result whenever there are two
>>different phenotypes.
>>
>>> This prejudicial focus on competitive
>>> relationships is why natural selection is commonly explained as a
>>> "mechanism" that reduces variation (see Talk.origins faq -
>>> Introduction to evolutionary theory, Darwin).
>>>
>>> Please if any Darwinist would reply, state if you're a
>>> competitor-Darwinist or a comparison-Darwinist.
>>
>>Those terms do not have real meaning.
>
> I explain the meaning below, they have the meaning below.
>
>> Natural selection involves a
>>comparison of phenotypes but is not the inevitable result of the existence
>>of two phenotypes. Phenotypes can be selectively neutral wrt each other.
>>Natural selection does involve the competition for reproductive success (and
>>requires that there *be* a difference in that metric for there to be natural
>>selection). It does not require direct competition against each other. Oh,
>>and remember the other requirements, such as being in a population (natural
>>selection usually involves variation within species, not between species)
>>and that the environment be held constant (or randomized). Natural
>>selection is not the relationship between predator and prey species. It
>>occurs within the predator population and within the prey population. It
>>does not occur between predator and prey.
>>
>>> That means if you
>>> require a relation of competition between the things you are
>>> differentiating to call some event natural selection, or if you only
>>> require a "relation" of comparison between the things you are
>>> differentiating to call some event natural selection.
>>
>>I am truly sorry that what biologists call natural selection is not the same
>>as what you thought it was. But I am afraid you will have to adhere to the
>>definition of selection that biologists have in order to talk about natural
>>selection intelligently.
>
> Well in my terms you are a comparison-Darwinist, because the
> relationship between the things you use in natural selection is
> comparison. For me as a Darwinism-criticizer I think it's very
> important to know if I am dealing with a comparison-Darwinist or with
> a competition-Darwinist.
I thought you were going to explain these terms. But I am simply a
biologist and am not really interested in terms that you make up so that you
can pigeon-hole people and create strawmen to argue against. Natural
selection inherently involves both comparison and competition. But by
competition, I mean competition *for reproductive success*, not necessarily
against each other, and certainly not necessarily against each other tooth
and fang until death. Most examples of natural selection do not involve
such pitched battles. Many are fought independently against environmental
constraints. And the comparison is a tightly constrained comparison.
If you want to argue against natural selection, you will have to argue
against the scientific meaning of the term (which is the one I presented)
rather than some personal and idiosyncratic definition you have invented.
So far all you have been doing is trying to avoid dealing with the
scientific definition because it doesn't fit the stereotype you think it
should be.
>
> Nando
>
Nando Ronteltap
Ok then, no mystical bond, but just a natural bond between all shit.
" Comparisons have not been observed, they have been manufactured by
observers."
"Bullshit."
Cowshit, horseshit, pigshit, chickenshit. A natural bond of comparison
exists between all shit.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>I thought you were going to explain these terms. But I am simply a
>biologist and am not really interested in terms that you make up so that you
>can pigeon-hole people and create strawmen to argue against. Natural
>selection inherently involves both comparison and competition.
Really...... You said that bacteria on separate feedingplates is
natural selection Howard. How is bacteria on *separate* feedingplates
competition?
I am taking your word for what natural selection is Howard. It's just
that I have always thought that competition only occurs with things
that physically influence each other in some way. If you deny that
this is so in natural selection, then I will take your word for that.
It will still mean that I reject natural selection as horrid
pseudoscience of course.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
Natural selection is falsified by there being no comparisons in
nature. That is the "emperical evidence that demonstrates natural
selection does not occur". You require there to be competition to
speak of natural selection, Howard doesn't. That is the difference,
between you and Howard. Since you say that "with natural selection
genes are always in competition", my point about you focusing on +/-
relationships is obviously entirely justified. You explicitely ignore
-/- relations, which have just the same significance as +/-
relationships. The way racists employ kin-selection is in my opinion a
logical extension of kin-selection theory. You make +/+ relations into
+/- relations at the level of the gene. That you explain a +/+
relation in terms of a +/- relationship evidences quite clearly my
guess that competition-Darwinists focus on +/- relationships. I will
not give an example of -/- relationships but I will clarify a bit more
what should be obvious. A -/- relationship is where "units" physically
decrease each other's reproduction. (this doesn't neccessarily mean
direct killing of each other with tooth and fang, and it applies to
plants as well of course).
Anyway...
I will try to make a decisionmodel for you to follow, that should make
it clear.
1) Do you require there to be a physical relationship (where units
influence each other's reproduction) to call some event or sequence of
events natural selection?
If yes, go to 2), if no, go to 4)
2) Units may be diverging, meaning they have no, or less so, physical
relationship with each other. Since you made a point of there being a
physical relationship, and the point of divergence is moving away from
a physical relationship, your natural selection doesn't cover
divergence.
Do you exclusively deal with physical relationships where one
increases reproduction at the cost of reproduction of the other?
If yes go to 3) if no go to 5)
3) You neglect all other possible physical relationships on
reproduction, such as mutual decrease, mutual increase, neutrality
etc. therefore your natural selection is unsystematic. (If you begin
to talk about comparison now, and not about physical relationships
then you made a mistake and must go back to 1)
4) You are a comparison-Darwinist. Comparisons don't exist in nature.
Physical relationships exist in nature.
5) Uh, by my thinking you shouldn't arrive here, except if you have
rejected natural selection. As a cushion, I still have an alternative
definition of natural selection if you arrive here, that doesn't
require either comparison or competition.
If you do arrive here but haven't rejected natural selection, then
please clarify which of these (one, or all, or several of the
possible) physical relationships on reproduction you *require* there
to be to call some event natural selection. +/+, -/-, +/-, 0/+, 0/-,
0/0. (for instance +/+ means both the "units" through their effects
increase each other's reproduction, and so on)
-note: very important that you *require* this relationship(s) in all
cases which you call natural selection
Nando
Justin Cobb
> "Justin Cobb" <jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> Natural selection is falsified by there being no comparisons in
> nature. That is the "emperical evidence that demonstrates natural
> selection does not occur".
Again I ask, HOW does this demonstrate that natural selection does not
occur?
You require there to be competition to
> speak of natural selection, Howard doesn't. That is the difference,
> between you and Howard. Since you say that "with natural selection
> genes are always in competition", my point about you focusing on +/-
> relationships is obviously entirely justified. You explicitely ignore
> -/- relations, which have just the same significance as +/-
> relationships.
I have already explained how natural selection is defined as competition
among alleles, and I have already explained how this is true regardless of
the relationships in which organisms are involved. You have not
demonstrated that it does not work that way. You have only given
unsupported assertions.
The way racists employ kin-selection is in my opinion a
> logical extension of kin-selection theory.
Mmm hmm, OK, this matters.
You make +/+ relations into
> +/- relations at the level of the gene. That you explain a +/+
> relation in terms of a +/- relationship evidences quite clearly my
> guess that competition-Darwinists focus on +/- relationships.
If this is the case, then all "Darwinists" are of the "competition" genre
since NATURAL SELECTION = COMPETITION BETWEEN ALLELES.
I will
> not give an example of -/- relationships but I will clarify a bit more
> what should be obvious. A -/- relationship is where "units" physically
> decrease each other's reproduction.
This is precisely why I asked for an example. You cannot give me an example
because no example of such a relationship would exist in nature due to the
fact that such behavior would be selected against.
(this doesn't neccessarily mean
> direct killing of each other with tooth and fang, and it applies to
> plants as well of course).
>
> Anyway...
>
> I will try to make a decisionmodel for you to follow, that should make
> it clear.
>
> 1) Do you require there to be a physical relationship (where units
> influence each other's reproduction) to call some event or sequence of
> events natural selection?
No, there does not have to be a physical relationship between organisms for
natural selection to occur. Selective pressures can be due to the
environment in which an organism lives, not just the other organism. Either
way, though, there is still competition between alleles because alleles
which confer fitness advantages in a given environment will be favored over
those alleles which do not confer fitness advantages in said environment.
>
> If yes, go to 2), if no, go to 4)
>
> 2) Units may be diverging, meaning they have no, or less so, physical
> relationship with each other. Since you made a point of there being a
> physical relationship, and the point of divergence is moving away from
> a physical relationship, your natural selection doesn't cover
> divergence.
I did not "make a point of there being a physical relationship." I
discussed your given social relationships in terms of physical relationships
because, well, that's what they are, aren't they? As I stated above, the
environment in which a population lives can provide selection pressures just
as well as can a social relationship between two organisms in a population.
As for divergence, the true definition of natural selection explains this
quite well. With divergence, natural selection acts on the diverging
population and results in sort of a specialization for each of the diverging
lineages. For example, if you have a population of dogs that is eventually
becoming two distinct, reproductively-isolated populations, it would be in
their best interest to "prefer" different prey. As their preferences become
more different, there is less competition between the diverging lineages.
If their preferences were to be more similar, there would be more
competition between the diverging lineages. Thus, for the lineages to
diverge, rather than one subpopulation take over, it is in both
subpopulations' best interest, in terms of fitness, for their preferences to
be different. I hope I have explained this clearly enough. If not, I would
be more than happy to go into more detail.
> Do you exclusively deal with physical relationships where one
> increases reproduction at the cost of reproduction of the other?
No. As I have explained before, even in a "physical relationship" in which
both organisms benefit in terms of fitness, their alleles are still in
competition with other alleles in the population.
>
> If yes go to 3) if no go to 5)
>
> 3) You neglect all other possible physical relationships on
> reproduction, such as mutual decrease, mutual increase, neutrality
> etc. therefore your natural selection is unsystematic. (If you begin
> to talk about comparison now, and not about physical relationships
> then you made a mistake and must go back to 1)
Apparently nothing that I have said has made any difference in your opinion,
regardless of the lack of evidence on your side. This shows just how
dogmatic you are about your opinion.
>
> 4) You are a comparison-Darwinist. Comparisons don't exist in nature.
> Physical relationships exist in nature.
>
> 5) Uh, by my thinking you shouldn't arrive here, except if you have
> rejected natural selection. As a cushion, I still have an alternative
> definition of natural selection if you arrive here, that doesn't
> require either comparison or competition.
Your "alternative definition" makes no difference. Natural selection is
defined as competition between alleles. If your "alternative defintion"
does not define natural selection as competition between alleles, then it is
a false definition. For your information, this is not my personal
definition--this is the definition given to me in lecture by my Animal
Biology 301 (Intro. to Evol. Biol.) and Animal Biology 346 (Animal Behav.)
professors (just so you know where I got that definition). That is not
their "personal" definition--that is THE definition.
>
> If you do arrive here but haven't rejected natural selection, then
> please clarify which of these (one, or all, or several of the
> possible) physical relationships on reproduction you *require* there
> to be to call some event natural selection. +/+, -/-, +/-, 0/+, 0/-,
> 0/0. (for instance +/+ means both the "units" through their effects
> increase each other's reproduction, and so on)
To call an event natural selection, I require that there be competition
between alleles. I don't know how I can make this any more clear to you.
Dave Horn
news:5abqetcev5al23d9q...@4ax.com...
Maybe a natural bond can exist between Nando's claim that the "biology
community at large" agrees with him that Darwin's work was a "stinking piece
of revolting shit" (or whatever) and his ability to support that claim with
evidence from the "biology community.
Or maybe we can find a natural bond between Nando's statement that he thinks
the Jews are bad because his reading of the Bible tells him so (because we
allegedly killed Jesus) and his explanation as to how this is a quite
reasonable conclusion.
Then again, maybe the only explanation for these "natural bonds" is that
Nando is a lying, cowardly, evasive bigot.
justin adair cobb
I worded this pretty badly. It looks like an argument from authority.
That was not my intention in the passage. My intention was to show that I
am using the definition for natural selection which is the generally
accepted
definition among professionals in evolutionary biology (i.e., the
'proper' definition, per se).
howard hershey
----------
In article <5fkmet0vgbhfdjnpk...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
<onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
>>> Well I am denying/rejecting it, hence the title of the thread.
>>
>>To deny something that has actually been observed
>>is to deny reality. That is a sign of insanity.
>
> Comparisons have not been observed, they have been manufactured by
> observers.
Not only are comparisons observed, they are a crucial element of all
experimental science. The "control" in experiments is the crucial "point of
comparison" against which the "experimental" result is compared. Your
position is even extreme for a postmodernist position that there is no
reality separate from their observation of it. You are now claiming that
even the observation of a comparative difference of any sort is not really
observed, it is manufactured. Are you really claiming that reality does not
exist independently of our having manufactured it. IOW, you seem to be
saying that I am not really shorter than an adult giraffe, that my apparent
shorter stature is nothing but something I have manufactured in my own mind.
In reality, that giraffe is neither shorter, taller, nor the same height as
I am. Why? Are you claiming that the giraffe does not exist or that it
doesn't have any material reality that would allow its height to be
measured?
> Simply put, you want me to believe that there is some
> mystical connection between things that have no physical relationship
> with each other whatsoever.
You are the one who is claiming that there is no comparative difference in
nature. You are the one who is claiming that material reality does not
exist, but is a manufactured figment of my imagination. I am only imagining
that adult giraffe's are taller than I am?
> As with the fish in separate ponds, or
> bacteria on separate feeding plates. No physical relationship
> whatsoever, but still natural selection.
Obviously you misunderstand what I said. Probably because you fail to
recognize competition *for* reproductive success. Reproductive success in
bacteria is measured by growth rate. If I have two bacterial strains which
differ only in how well they can utilize lactose and measure their growth
rates on lactose on independent plates, that is *often* (but not always) the
same as their growth rates would be if they were on the same plate. Since
differential reproductive success is *measured by* differential growth rates
and, in this case, it makes no difference whether the rate is measured on
the same or different plates (the competition is for resources, not against
each other) or on the same plate. Natural selection, of course, can only
*occur* when the two are on the same plate. But because the competition for
resources is not affected by the presence of the other strain, the growth
rates *measured* or *estimated* on independent plates represent reasonable
approximations of growth rate when both are present. I explicitly said that
sometimes such independent estimates of reproductive success do not hold
when the organisms are in the position to actually undergo selection.
> Obviously this means natural
> selection is pseudoscience.
>
> "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted
> object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of
> the higher animals,directly follows. There is a grandeur in this view
> of life," gibber gibber gibber
>
> (C. Gibber, The Origin of Gibberish by Means of Authoritive Flubber,
> 1859)
>
> Nando
>
Nando Ronteltap
>"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4ucqetk5185onf3g6...@4ax.com...
>> "Justin Cobb" <jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Natural selection is falsified by there being no comparisons in
>> nature. That is the "emperical evidence that demonstrates natural
>> selection does not occur".
>
>Again I ask, HOW does this demonstrate that natural selection does not
>occur?
Comparison is a neccessary ingredient of natural selection, and since
there are no comparisons in nature, there is no natural selection.
Howard said that comparisons are not made, but are reported.
>>You require there to be competition to
>> speak of natural selection, Howard doesn't. That is the difference,
>> between you and Howard. Since you say that "with natural selection
>> genes are always in competition", my point about you focusing on +/-
>> relationships is obviously entirely justified. You explicitely ignore
>> -/- relations, which have just the same significance as +/-
>> relationships.
>
>I have already explained how natural selection is defined as competition
>among alleles, and I have already explained how this is true regardless of
>the relationships in which organisms are involved. You have not
>demonstrated that it does not work that way. You have only given
>unsupported assertions.
Bladibla. You have not been addressing my points. You clearly are not
giving an answer to my point here. I mean what I say is true. You
completely ignore -/- relationships.
>> The way racists employ kin-selection is in my opinion a
>> logical extension of kin-selection theory.
>
>Mmm hmm, OK, this matters.
>
>You make +/+ relations into
>> +/- relations at the level of the gene. That you explain a +/+
>> relation in terms of a +/- relationship evidences quite clearly my
>> guess that competition-Darwinists focus on +/- relationships.
>
>If this is the case, then all "Darwinists" are of the "competition" genre
>since NATURAL SELECTION = COMPETITION BETWEEN ALLELES.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what you think is competition. I think
competition only occurs when things physically influence each other,
when there is some physical link. But Howard suggested that this isn't
the case. So this may be the basis of our mutual disagreement, that we
view competition differently. I view competition as requiring a
neccessary physical relationship between the competitors, while you
may say that a physical relationship between competitors is not
neccesarily there.
Do you think it's neccessary for your competitors in natural selection
to physically be influencing each other's reproduction, to speak of
there being competition between them?
>>I will
>> not give an example of -/- relationships but I will clarify a bit more
>> what should be obvious. A -/- relationship is where "units" physically
>> decrease each other's reproduction.
>
>This is precisely why I asked for an example. You cannot give me an example
>because no example of such a relationship would exist in nature due to the
>fact that such behavior would be selected against.
I see. So then you admit these relationships exist incedentally, and
where they exist they are "selected against".
I do not give an example because you muddled up the issue with several
levels of selection. (I never talked about social level and allelle
level, you started that by yourself) You describe to me a relation of
+/- first please (a physical relationship where one "unit" increases
at the cost of the other).
>>(this doesn't neccessarily mean
>> direct killing of each other with tooth and fang, and it applies to
>> plants as well of course).
>>
>> Anyway...
>>
>> I will try to make a decisionmodel for you to follow, that should make
>> it clear.
>>
>> 1) Do you require there to be a physical relationship (where units
>> influence each other's reproduction) to call some event or sequence of
>> events natural selection?
>
>No, there does not have to be a physical relationship between organisms for
>natural selection to occur.
I didn't say organisms, I said units. You are a comparison-Darwinist
(in my terms), and then you believe that competition doesn't require a
physical relation. You should go to 4 then.
> Selective pressures can be due to the
>environment in which an organism lives, not just the other organism. Either
>way, though, there is still competition between alleles because alleles
>which confer fitness advantages in a given environment will be favored over
>those alleles which do not confer fitness advantages in said environment.
Whatever else that means, it still means that there is no neccessary
(functional) physical relationship between competing "units", allelles
in this case.
Functional meaning, that the presence or absence of one or the other
of the competing "units" would make no difference on each respective
reproductive success.
A situation with a complete absence of a physical relationship in
competition, as with comparing the reproduction of allelles of fish in
completely separate ponds for instance, can still be called natural
selection.
So this means then that natural selection is a non-physical
pseudoscience.
If not then you have to tell me what physical relationship you do
*require* there to be, to call some event natural selection.
>> If yes, go to 2), if no, go to 4)
>>
>> 2) Units may be diverging, meaning they have no, or less so, physical
>> relationship with each other. Since you made a point of there being a
>> physical relationship, and the point of divergence is moving away from
>> a physical relationship, your natural selection doesn't cover
>> divergence.
>
>I did not "make a point of there being a physical relationship." I
>discussed your given social relationships in terms of physical relationships
>because, well, that's what they are, aren't they? As I stated above, the
>environment in which a population lives can provide selection pressures just
>as well as can a social relationship between two organisms in a population.
Social relationships? I only meant to talk about physical
relationships for competition. I meant comparitive relationships as
non-physical.
>As for divergence, the true definition of natural selection explains this
>quite well. With divergence, natural selection acts on the diverging
>population and results in sort of a specialization for each of the diverging
>lineages. For example, if you have a population of dogs that is eventually
>becoming two distinct, reproductively-isolated populations, it would be in
>their best interest to "prefer" different prey. As their preferences become
>more different, there is less competition between the diverging lineages.
>If their preferences were to be more similar, there would be more
>competition between the diverging lineages. Thus, for the lineages to
>diverge, rather than one subpopulation take over, it is in both
>subpopulations' best interest, in terms of fitness, for their preferences to
>be different. I hope I have explained this clearly enough. If not, I would
>be more than happy to go into more detail.
You have not arrived at 2 because you answered the first question that
you require no physical relationship, so then you should go to 4.
>> Do you exclusively deal with physical relationships where one
>> increases reproduction at the cost of reproduction of the other?
>
>No. As I have explained before, even in a "physical relationship" in which
>both organisms benefit in terms of fitness, their alleles are still in
>competition with other alleles in the population.
Is competition between allelles a physical relation where the one
allelle increases reproduction at the cost of the other?
If this is so you should have answered yes on the first question in
stead of no. But again, you are at 4 now.
>> If yes go to 3) if no go to 5)
>>
>> 3) You neglect all other possible physical relationships on
>> reproduction, such as mutual decrease, mutual increase, neutrality
>> etc. therefore your natural selection is unsystematic. (If you begin
>> to talk about comparison now, and not about physical relationships
>> then you made a mistake and must go back to 1)
>
>Apparently nothing that I have said has made any difference in your opinion,
>regardless of the lack of evidence on your side. This shows just how
>dogmatic you are about your opinion.
You can't be here, you are at 4, since you require no physical
relationships whatsoever (different allelles in different ponds is
still natural selection according to you.)
>> 4) You are a comparison-Darwinist. Comparisons don't exist in nature.
>> Physical relationships exist in nature.
Ah, you should go here, but of all places here you write no answer!
<grumble>
>> 5) Uh, by my thinking you shouldn't arrive here, except if you have
>> rejected natural selection. As a cushion, I still have an alternative
>> definition of natural selection if you arrive here, that doesn't
>> require either comparison or competition.
>
>Your "alternative definition" makes no difference.
Right. Natural selection would still be false even if I didn't have an
alternative definition.
> Natural selection is
>defined as competition between alleles. If your "alternative defintion"
>does not define natural selection as competition between alleles, then it is
>a false definition. For your information, this is not my personal
>definition--this is the definition given to me in lecture by my Animal
>Biology 301 (Intro. to Evol. Biol.) and Animal Biology 346 (Animal Behav.)
>professors (just so you know where I got that definition). That is not
>their "personal" definition--that is THE definition.
Ok. F=m*a, E=mc^2, NS=competition between allelles.
Yeah right. It is just one of the hundred or so definitions of natural
selection, but never mind. I will accept this definition, as THE one
you learned definition, and mean to use it correctly in criticizing
it. I believe there are some alternative definitions for F=m*a also.
Nothing wrong with having more then one definition.
>> If you do arrive here but haven't rejected natural selection, then
>> please clarify which of these (one, or all, or several of the
>> possible) physical relationships on reproduction you *require* there
>> to be to call some event natural selection. +/+, -/-, +/-, 0/+, 0/-,
>> 0/0. (for instance +/+ means both the "units" through their effects
>> increase each other's reproduction, and so on)
>
>To call an event natural selection, I require that there be competition
>between alleles. I don't know how I can make this any more clear to you.
You can make this more clear to me by answering if the allelles of
fish in separate ponds can be in competition with each other.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>In article <5fkmet0vgbhfdjnpk...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
><onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Comparisons have not been observed, they have been manufactured by
>> observers.
>
>Not only are comparisons observed, they are a crucial element of all
>experimental science. The "control" in experiments is the crucial "point of
>comparison" against which the "experimental" result is compared. Your
>position is even extreme for a postmodernist position that there is no
>reality separate from their observation of it. You are now claiming that
>even the observation of a comparative difference of any sort is not really
>observed, it is manufactured. Are you really claiming that reality does not
>exist independently of our having manufactured it. IOW, you seem to be
>saying that I am not really shorter than an adult giraffe, that my apparent
>shorter stature is nothing but something I have manufactured in my own mind.
>In reality, that giraffe is neither shorter, taller, nor the same height as
>I am. Why? Are you claiming that the giraffe does not exist or that it
>doesn't have any material reality that would allow its height to be
>measured?
Obviously that's not what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that eventhough
the eiffeltower may be uh.. 500 feet long, the foot of a dead king and
the Eiffeltower have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
(since in continental Europe they measure things in meters I expect
the eiffeltower not to have been constructed with an eye to whole
foots)
<snip>
>> As with the fish in separate ponds, or
>> bacteria on separate feeding plates. No physical relationship
>> whatsoever, but still natural selection.
>
>Obviously you misunderstand what I said. Probably because you fail to
>recognize competition *for* reproductive success. Reproductive success in
>bacteria is measured by growth rate. If I have two bacterial strains which
>differ only in how well they can utilize lactose and measure their growth
>rates on lactose on independent plates, that is *often* (but not always) the
>same as their growth rates would be if they were on the same plate. Since
>differential reproductive success is *measured by* differential growth rates
>and, in this case, it makes no difference whether the rate is measured on
>the same or different plates (the competition is for resources, not against
>each other) or on the same plate. Natural selection, of course, can only
>*occur* when the two are on the same plate.
What? It makes no difference if they are separate or together, but
still only when together you call it natural selection. That makes no
sense. Why do you *require* them to be together to call it natural
selection if it doesn't neccessarily make any difference if they are
together?
If there is no difference, then there is no point to require them to
be together.
> But because the competition for
>resources is not affected by the presence of the other strain, the growth
>rates *measured* or *estimated* on independent plates represent reasonable
>approximations of growth rate when both are present. I explicitly said that
>sometimes such independent estimates of reproductive success do not hold
>when the organisms are in the position to actually undergo selection.
As above you have totally lost me.
Nando
howard hershey
----------
In article <4ucqetk5185onf3g6...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
<onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Justin Cobb" <jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> Natural selection is falsified by there being no comparisons in
> nature. That is the "emperical evidence that demonstrates natural
> selection does not occur". You require there to be competition to
> speak of natural selection, Howard doesn't. That is the difference,
> between you and Howard. Since you say that "with natural selection
> genes are always in competition", my point about you focusing on +/-
> relationships is obviously entirely justified. You explicitely ignore
> -/- relations, which have just the same significance as +/-
> relationships. The way racists employ kin-selection is in my opinion a
> logical extension of kin-selection theory. You make +/+ relations into
> +/- relations at the level of the gene. That you explain a +/+
> relation in terms of a +/- relationship evidences quite clearly my
> guess that competition-Darwinists focus on +/- relationships. I will
> not give an example of -/- relationships but I will clarify a bit more
> what should be obvious. A -/- relationship is where "units" physically
> decrease each other's reproduction. (this doesn't neccessarily mean
> direct killing of each other with tooth and fang, and it applies to
> plants as well of course).
>
> Anyway...
>
> I will try to make a decisionmodel for you to follow, that should make
> it clear.
>
> 1) Do you require there to be a physical relationship (where units
> influence each other's reproduction) to call some event or sequence of
> events natural selection?
>
> If yes, go to 2), if no, go to 4)
I assume you mean by "where units influence each other's reproduction" (if
'units' are populations with alternate phenotypes) that I am being asked if
only cases where there is direct head-to-head competion *against* each other
counts as 'natural selection'. My answer is no, but. "No" because such
competition is not "required". "But" because it is certainly not excluded.
Head-to-head competition that resulted in a difference in reproductive
success would certainly count as natural selection.
>
> 2) Units may be diverging, meaning they have no, or less so, physical
> relationship with each other. Since you made a point of there being a
> physical relationship, and the point of divergence is moving away from
> a physical relationship, your natural selection doesn't cover
> divergence.
To the extent that the above makes any sense at all (and it makes very
little), it doesn't seem to be describing natural selection. The units of
natural selection (populations with alternative phenotypes) are not
diverging, they are having more or less reproductive success, the
consequence of which is that the make up of the entire population in that
environment is changing (in the direction of greater fitness). Speciation
is not the same thing as 'natural selection'. Selective pressures can lead
to speciation, but they need not do so.
> Do you exclusively deal with physical relationships where one
> increases reproduction at the cost of reproduction of the other?
Because natural selection requires that there be differential reproduction,
only cases where there is a significant difference in reproductive success
can be attributed to natural selection. Changes in allele frequency in a
population that are not due to natural selection are due to chance. So the
answer is yes.
>
> If yes go to 3) if no go to 5)
>
> 3) You neglect all other possible physical relationships on
> reproduction, such as mutual decrease, mutual increase, neutrality
> etc. therefore your natural selection is unsystematic.
It is perfectly systematic to include in natural selection only those cases
where the difference in reproductive success is causally related to the
difference in alternative phenotypes and to *not* include cases where there
is no significant difference related to the phenotype. Any differences in
these other cases may be due to environmental differences or pure chance,
but are not natural selection, which requires that the phenotypic difference
cause a significant effect.
> (If you begin
> to talk about comparison now, and not about physical relationships
> then you made a mistake and must go back to 1)
>
> 4) You are a comparison-Darwinist. Comparisons don't exist in nature.
> Physical relationships exist in nature.
And what exactly do you think is the difference here in practice? How do
you know that physical relationships (such as differences in size) exist in
nature if you can't compare individuals or groups that differ in these
properties?
>
> 5) Uh, by my thinking you shouldn't arrive here, except if you have
> rejected natural selection.
I didn't. But I wound up at both other options.
> As a cushion, I still have an alternative
> definition of natural selection if you arrive here, that doesn't
> require either comparison or competition.
I have repeatedly said that I am not interested in *your* definition of
natural selection, since it has no relationship to the standard definition.
>
> If you do arrive here but haven't rejected natural selection, then
> please clarify which of these (one, or all, or several of the
> possible) physical relationships on reproduction you *require* there
> to be to call some event natural selection. +/+, -/-, +/-, 0/+, 0/-,
> 0/0. (for instance +/+ means both the "units" through their effects
> increase each other's reproduction, and so on)
What +/+ means is that, compared to *environments* in which the two 'units'
(presumably populations of a species with alternative alleles) are
separated, there is symbiosis or mutualism when the two phenotypes are
together in the same environment. For example, a bacterial strain which is
ampicillin resistant and unable to make histidine may provide a local zone
of protection for an ampicillin sensitive strain which is able to make and
leak some histidine to the resistant strain. In an environment with
ampicillin and no exogenous histidine, neither strain can grow alone, but
together they may eke out some growth (with the amp-resistant strain
providing some protection to the amp-sensitive strain, and the latter
providing some histidine to the former).
But notice that we now have alternative alleles for two, not one, gene.
Natural selection is measured by the relative success of one allele over its
alternative, all else being equal or randomized. So in this environment, if
the amp-resistant strain grew *significantly* faster than the amp-sensitive
strain, there would certainly be selection for that allele (and
coincidentaly selection against the allele that has the ability to make
histidine). If there were no difference in growth rates of the two strains,
there would not be any selection. But, in this case, the judgement about
the selective value would be confounded by a second uncontrolled variable
(ability to make histidine).
howard hershey
----------
In article <khbqet49irb14mfs9...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
<onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Really...... You said that bacteria on separate feedingplates is
> natural selection Howard. How is bacteria on *separate* feedingplates
> competition?
What I actually said was that, for cases where the competition is against
the evironment, it often makes no difference whether you measure growth
rates on separate plates or together on the same plate. For natural
selection to actually occur, both strains must be in the same environment.
But, because competition does not necessarily mean competition against each
other, you can often *predict* the result from growth rates in separate
plates.
>
> I am taking your word for what natural selection is Howard.
Well, so far, you don't seem to be understanding what I am saying.
> It's just
> that I have always thought that competition only occurs with things
> that physically influence each other in some way.
The competition involved in natural selection is competition for the
resources needed to be reproductively successful. If strain A has a
defective enzyme that only allows it to grow on plates with lactose at half
the rate as strain B, then, because they are not competing against each
other but competing to see who most efficiently converts lactose into more
bacteria of their type, putting the two on the same plate will (99 times out
of 100) result in more strain B than strain A by exactly the amount one
could predict on the basis of B being twice as efficient in converting
lactose into more strain B cells. Natural selection only occurs on the
plate with both strains, but the result seen (often in both qualitative and
quantitative sense) could be predicted on the basis of how the strains did
on separate plates.
I also pointed out that there are cases where the predictions from the
equivalent of separate plates are wrong. Cases where selection involves
direct competition between individuals with alternate phenotypes (or
frequency dependent selection) would be examples. For example, a poorly
endowed peacock may get to screw the peahens just as frequently as the
well-endowed one so long as the peahens are not given access to both (as
long as the females only see the one male). But when you put the males in
tail-to-tail combat to attract the chicks, the fancier tail wins the babes.
> If you deny that
> this is so in natural selection, then I will take your word for that.
>
> It will still mean that I reject natural selection as horrid
> pseudoscience of course.
Well, if I thought that natural selection were whatever you seem to think it
is, I probably would too. But since you have only presented strange, odd,
inchoherant ideas about comparisons not existing in nature, I don't have to
reject natural selection. Real natural selection, as opposed to your
fantasy, is quite scientific.
>
> Nando
>
howard hershey
----------
In article <lmeretog5tme28c1v...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
<onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "howard hershey" <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>>In article <5fkmet0vgbhfdjnpk...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
>><onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Comparisons have not been observed, they have been manufactured by
>>> observers.
>>
>>Not only are comparisons observed, they are a crucial element of all
>>experimental science. The "control" in experiments is the crucial "point of
>>comparison" against which the "experimental" result is compared. Your
>>position is even extreme for a postmodernist position that there is no
>>reality separate from their observation of it. You are now claiming that
>>even the observation of a comparative difference of any sort is not really
>>observed, it is manufactured. Are you really claiming that reality does not
>>exist independently of our having manufactured it. IOW, you seem to be
>>saying that I am not really shorter than an adult giraffe, that my apparent
>>shorter stature is nothing but something I have manufactured in my own mind.
>>In reality, that giraffe is neither shorter, taller, nor the same height as
>>I am. Why? Are you claiming that the giraffe does not exist or that it
>>doesn't have any material reality that would allow its height to be
>>measured?
>
> Obviously that's not what I'm claiming.
Yes that is what you are claiming.
> I'm claiming that eventhough
> the eiffeltower may be uh.. 500 feet long, the foot of a dead king and
> the Eiffeltower have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
Yes they do. The Eiffel tower is approximately 500 times bigger than the
length of the foot of a dead king. Just as an adult giraffe (at 15 ft.) is
about 2.5 times my size. Both are comparisons of two objects on the basis
of a given parameter (length). In both cases there is a significant
comparative difference in length. Moreover that difference is real and
unaffected by observation of its existence. You somehow must be confused by
the fact that the units of measurement in your example is the length of one
of the entities being compared.
>
> (since in continental Europe they measure things in meters I expect
> the eiffeltower not to have been constructed with an eye to whole
> foots)
>
> <snip>
>
>>> As with the fish in separate ponds, or
>>> bacteria on separate feeding plates. No physical relationship
>>> whatsoever, but still natural selection.
>>
>>Obviously you misunderstand what I said. Probably because you fail to
>>recognize competition *for* reproductive success. Reproductive success in
>>bacteria is measured by growth rate. If I have two bacterial strains which
>>differ only in how well they can utilize lactose and measure their growth
>>rates on lactose on independent plates, that is *often* (but not always) the
>>same as their growth rates would be if they were on the same plate. Since
>>differential reproductive success is *measured by* differential growth rates
>>and, in this case, it makes no difference whether the rate is measured on
>>the same or different plates (the competition is for resources, not against
>>each other) or on the same plate. Natural selection, of course, can only
>>*occur* when the two are on the same plate.
>
> What? It makes no difference if they are separate or together, but
> still only when together you call it natural selection.
That's right. Only when they are in the same environment competing for the
same reproductive resources, can there be natural selection (a choosing
between alternative alleles). When they are in monoculture, you merely can
note the growth rate, which can often be usefully used as an estimate of
what will happen in mixed culture, but there is no natural selection in a
monoculture. Since, in a monoculture environment, there is no difference in
phenotype, you cannot observe *differential* reproduction between
phenotypes. But the growth rate measured there can be used to *predict*
what will happen when both phenotypes are competing for the same resources
and will often work in that environment.
> That makes no
> sense. Why do you *require* them to be together to call it natural
> selection if it doesn't neccessarily make any difference if they are
> together?
>
> If there is no difference, then there is no point to require them to
> be together.
If there is no difference in growth rate whether the two phenotypically
different strains are together or apart, that means that selection is not
due to direct competition between the strains, but rather to competition for
some resource.
>
>> But because the competition for
>>resources is not affected by the presence of the other strain, the growth
>>rates *measured* or *estimated* on independent plates represent reasonable
>>approximations of growth rate when both are present. I explicitly said that
>>sometimes such independent estimates of reproductive success do not hold
>>when the organisms are in the position to actually undergo selection.
>
> As above you have totally lost me.
Simple example.
Time: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Strain A alone in lactose media: 2 4 8 16 32 64
Strain B alone in lactose media: 4 16 64 256 1024 4096
Strain B grows twice as fast in lactose media as strain A. Both, at this
point, are in log phase and doubling as fast as they can. But by 6 units of
time, we see 64 times as many strain B cells.
Now we grow both strains in the same batch of media and see the same result.
That says that the growth rates seen without competition are the same as
those seen with direct competition. Natural selection requires that the
phenotypes be in competition for the same resources. Otherwise, you simply
have different levels of growth of a strain. If you are the only game in
town, it doesn't matter what an alternative can do. It only matters when
you start competing for resources (related to reproductive success).
>
> Nando
>
Nando Ronteltap
No I didn't mean that. I meant what I said, which isn't that.
Influence on reproduction in some way, means that the unit in effect,
increases or decreases the reproductive success of the other unit. I
will paste the decisionmodel at the bottom, so I can clearly see what
your answers are when you understand the question,ok?
> My answer is no, but. "No" because such
>competition is not "required". "But" because it is certainly not excluded.
>Head-to-head competition that resulted in a difference in reproductive
>success would certainly count as natural selection.
Please tell me then what, if any, the required physical relation on
reproductive success between the different units is.
>> 2) Units may be diverging, meaning they have no, or less so, physical
>> relationship with each other. Since you made a point of there being a
>> physical relationship, and the point of divergence is moving away from
>> a physical relationship, your natural selection doesn't cover
>> divergence.
>
>To the extent that the above makes any sense at all (and it makes very
>little), it doesn't seem to be describing natural selection. The units of
>natural selection (populations with alternative phenotypes) are not
>diverging, they are having more or less reproductive success, the
>consequence of which is that the make up of the entire population in that
>environment is changing (in the direction of greater fitness). Speciation
>is not the same thing as 'natural selection'. Selective pressures can lead
>to speciation, but they need not do so.
If a physical relation on reproductive success is a requirement to
call some event natural selection, then natural selection doesn't
cover instances where the point is no, or lesser, physical relations
on reproductive success.
But then I don't have a clue if a physical relation on reproductive
success between the differentiated units, is a requirement to call
some event natural selection.
So my argument is based on quicksand.
>> Do you exclusively deal with physical relationships where one
>> increases reproduction at the cost of reproduction of the other?
>
>Because natural selection requires that there be differential reproduction,
>only cases where there is a significant difference in reproductive success
>can be attributed to natural selection. Changes in allele frequency in a
>population that are not due to natural selection are due to chance. So the
>answer is yes.
That's commendable clarity. But since I'm insecure I will ask the same
question to you again, and see if I get the same clear answer. (I have
been in this discussion for years without clear answers so I think
it's legitimate to ask it again)
Do you exclusively deal with physical relationships where one
increases reproduction at the cost of reproduction of the other?
>> If yes go to 3) if no go to 5)
>>
>> 3) You neglect all other possible physical relationships on
>> reproduction, such as mutual decrease, mutual increase, neutrality
>> etc. therefore your natural selection is unsystematic.
>
>It is perfectly systematic to include in natural selection only those cases
>where the difference in reproductive success is causally related to the
>difference in alternative phenotypes and to *not* include cases where there
>is no significant difference related to the phenotype. Any differences in
>these other cases may be due to environmental differences or pure chance,
>but are not natural selection, which requires that the phenotypic difference
>cause a significant effect.
Interesting. I will deal with that some other time.
>> (If you begin
>> to talk about comparison now, and not about physical relationships
>> then you made a mistake and must go back to 1)
>>
>> 4) You are a comparison-Darwinist. Comparisons don't exist in nature.
>> Physical relationships exist in nature.
>
>And what exactly do you think is the difference here in practice? How do
>you know that physical relationships (such as differences in size) exist in
>nature if you can't compare individuals or groups that differ in these
>properties?
A difference in size is not a physical relationship in my terms. A
physical relationship is where the one influences the other in some
way. That can be distinguished from a comparison. You can make a
comparison between things, and still the things compared don't have to
influence each other at all.
>> 5) Uh, by my thinking you shouldn't arrive here, except if you have
>> rejected natural selection.
>
>I didn't. But I wound up at both other options.
>
>> As a cushion, I still have an alternative
>> definition of natural selection if you arrive here, that doesn't
>> require either comparison or competition.
>
>I have repeatedly said that I am not interested in *your* definition of
>natural selection, since it has no relationship to the standard definition.
Right. I shouldn't have brought it up, it only confused things.
>> If you do arrive here but haven't rejected natural selection, then
>> please clarify which of these (one, or all, or several of the
>> possible) physical relationships on reproduction you *require* there
>> to be to call some event natural selection. +/+, -/-, +/-, 0/+, 0/-,
>> 0/0. (for instance +/+ means both the "units" through their effects
>> increase each other's reproduction, and so on)
>
>What +/+ means is that, compared to *environments* in which the two 'units'
No, +/+ means that the units in effect increase each other's
reproduction. Just like +/- means that the one unit in effect
increases reproduction, at the cost of reproduction of the other.
<snip, since misunderstanding>
<begin paste>
1) Do you require there to be a physical relationship (where units
influence each other's reproduction) to call some event or sequence of
events natural selection?
If yes, go to 2), if no, go to 4)
2) Units may be diverging, meaning they have no, or less so, physical
relationship with each other. Since you made a point of there being a
physical relationship, and the point of divergence is moving away from
a physical relationship, your natural selection doesn't cover
divergence.
Do you exclusively deal with physical relationships where one
increases reproduction at the cost of reproduction of the other?
If yes go to 3) if no go to 5)
3) You neglect all other possible physical relationships on
reproduction, such as mutual decrease, mutual increase, neutrality
etc. therefore your natural selection is unsystematic. (If you begin
to talk about comparison now, and not about physical relationships
then you made a mistake and must go back to 1)
4) You are a comparison-Darwinist. Comparisons don't exist in nature.
Physical relationships exist in nature.
5) Uh, by my thinking you shouldn't arrive here, except if you have
rejected natural selection. As a cushion, I still have an alternative
definition of natural selection if you arrive here, that doesn't
require either comparison or competition.
If you do arrive here but haven't rejected natural selection, then
please clarify which of these (one, or all, or several of the
possible) physical relationships on reproduction you *require* there
to be to call some event natural selection. +/+, -/-, +/-, 0/+, 0/-,
0/0. (for instance +/+ means both the "units" through their effects
increase each other's reproduction, and so on)
-note: very important that you *require* this relationship(s) in all
Justin Cobb
> "Justin Cobb" <jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:4ucqetk5185onf3g6...@4ax.com...
> >> "Justin Cobb" <jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Natural selection is falsified by there being no comparisons in
> >> nature. That is the "emperical evidence that demonstrates natural
> >> selection does not occur".
> >
> >Again I ask, HOW does this demonstrate that natural selection does not
> >occur?
>
> Comparison is a neccessary ingredient of natural selection, and since
> there are no comparisons in nature, there is no natural selection.
>
> Howard said that comparisons are not made, but are reported.
Natural selection has nothing to do with comparison. Comparison is the
scientists' job. Natural selection is all about competition between
alleles.
>
> >>You require there to be competition to
> >> speak of natural selection, Howard doesn't. That is the difference,
> >> between you and Howard. Since you say that "with natural selection
> >> genes are always in competition", my point about you focusing on +/-
> >> relationships is obviously entirely justified. You explicitely ignore
> >> -/- relations, which have just the same significance as +/-
> >> relationships.
> >
> >I have already explained how natural selection is defined as competition
> >among alleles, and I have already explained how this is true regardless
of
> >the relationships in which organisms are involved. You have not
> >demonstrated that it does not work that way. You have only given
> >unsupported assertions.
>
> Bladibla. You have not been addressing my points. You clearly are not
> giving an answer to my point here. I mean what I say is true. You
> completely ignore -/- relationships.
OK, Nando, since you won't just be straightforward and tell us what exactly
your point is, I'm just going to have to take a guess. Would the
relationship between frankly pathogenic bacteria and their potential hosts
qualify as a -/- relationship? It seems to me that it would since hosts get
sick from pathogens and pathogens have to fight off the immune system. Here
is how natural selection is important in this relationship. More-virulent
bacteria are able to survive inside a host better than are less-virulent
bacteria because they place more stress on the host. Thus, if a mutation
occurs in a strain of pathogenic bacteria which confers higher virulence,
then this mutation should proliferate. However, we do have coevolution
occuring here so here is what could happen with a potential host. If a more
effective or more efficient immune system evolves in a potential host (e.g.,
new type of immunoglobulin, although this would take a rather long time
since evolution can only work with what is already there--do I need to
explain myself here, or is it plain and clear the way I have stated it),
then the genes of this host should proliferate, given that this occurs "in
nature," in the absence of human intervention (e.g., veterinary
treatment--antibiotics, for example--assuming that we are discussing
bacteria without antibiotic-resistance genes). As you see, natural
selection can--and does--occur in organisms which engage in mutual-loss
relationships. As I mentioned before, you haven't made your point clear so
I had to take a guess as to what exactly your point is. If I have guessed
wrong, please state your point in a clear, straightforward, concise manner
and explain why my example does not fit with your point.
>
> >> The way racists employ kin-selection is in my opinion a
> >> logical extension of kin-selection theory.
> >
> >Mmm hmm, OK, this matters.
> >
> >You make +/+ relations into
> >> +/- relations at the level of the gene. That you explain a +/+
> >> relation in terms of a +/- relationship evidences quite clearly my
> >> guess that competition-Darwinists focus on +/- relationships.
> >
> >If this is the case, then all "Darwinists" are of the "competition" genre
> >since NATURAL SELECTION = COMPETITION BETWEEN ALLELES.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what you think is competition.
I have already stated what I "think is competition"--competition between
alleles, meaning alleles that are replicated in the gene pool 'survive' and
those that are not do not 'survive.'
I think
> competition only occurs when things physically influence each other,
> when there is some physical link. But Howard suggested that this isn't
> the case. So this may be the basis of our mutual disagreement, that we
> view competition differently. I view competition as requiring a
> neccessary physical relationship between the competitors, while you
> may say that a physical relationship between competitors is not
> neccesarily there.
>
> Do you think it's neccessary for your competitors in natural selection
> to physically be influencing each other's reproduction, to speak of
> there being competition between them?
The only thing that really matters, as far as a "link," per se, is that the
alleles in competition are in the same gene pool. Even if two members of a
population do not even see each other during either of their lives, their
alleles are still in competition because for organisms to be members of the
same population means that their alleles are in the same gene pool.
>
> >>I will
> >> not give an example of -/- relationships but I will clarify a bit more
> >> what should be obvious. A -/- relationship is where "units" physically
> >> decrease each other's reproduction.
> >
> >This is precisely why I asked for an example. You cannot give me an
example
> >because no example of such a relationship would exist in nature due to
the
> >fact that such behavior would be selected against.
This statement of mine is incorrect. The idea of pathogens and hosts being
in a -/- relationship just occurred to me this afternoon. Pardon me for
being slow in remembering this particular relationship--I partied pretty
hard over the weekend, and finals are coming up in less than a week. :)
<snip>
> >> I will try to make a decisionmodel for you to follow, that should make
> >> it clear.
> >>
> >> 1) Do you require there to be a physical relationship (where units
> >> influence each other's reproduction) to call some event or sequence of
> >> events natural selection?
> >
> >No, there does not have to be a physical relationship between organisms
for
> >natural selection to occur.
>
> I didn't say organisms, I said units. You are a comparison-Darwinist
> (in my terms), and then you believe that competition doesn't require a
> physical relation. You should go to 4 then.
The link is that alleles within the same population are in the same gene
pool. I'm guessing this doesn't qualify as a "physical relationship," but
that is what the link is.
>
> > Selective pressures can be due to the
> >environment in which an organism lives, not just the other organism.
Either
> >way, though, there is still competition between alleles because alleles
> >which confer fitness advantages in a given environment will be favored
over
> >those alleles which do not confer fitness advantages in said environment.
>
> Whatever else that means, it still means that there is no neccessary
> (functional) physical relationship between competing "units", allelles
> in this case.
>
> Functional meaning, that the presence or absence of one or the other
> of the competing "units" would make no difference on each respective
> reproductive success.
If an organism's alleles are in a different gene pool, thus, essentially
absent from another organism's gene pool, then the success of the original
organism's alleles would have no affect on the succes of the other
organism's alleles.
>
> A situation with a complete absence of a physical relationship in
> competition, as with comparing the reproduction of allelles of fish in
> completely separate ponds for instance, can still be called natural
> selection.
>
> So this means then that natural selection is a non-physical
> pseudoscience.
This is not true because the unit of selection is the gene (more precisely,
the allele). Organisms do not have to be involved in relationships with
others in order for their alleles to be in competition. Suppose we had a
supply of food at a warehouse across town, and it is the only supply of food
that we have available. I go over there and take all the food for myself.
This food benefits my body (the vehicle) in terms of caloric return and
proper nutrition (I'm not going to eat it all at once and get fatter than
hell--not that I would be capable of eating it all in one sitting to begin
with due to constraints on stomach size, satiation threshold, mouth size,
etc.), and, thus, the ability of my body to endure the rigors of mating
(i.e., replication of my alleles) but not yours so even though you and I
never actually get into a physical conflict over the food--or even see each
other, for that matter--my body would be more capable of replicating its
alleles than your body would be in replicating your alleles.
>
> If not then you have to tell me what physical relationship you do
> *require* there to be, to call some event natural selection.
>
> >> If yes, go to 2), if no, go to 4)
> >>
> >> 2) Units may be diverging, meaning they have no, or less so, physical
> >> relationship with each other. Since you made a point of there being a
> >> physical relationship, and the point of divergence is moving away from
> >> a physical relationship, your natural selection doesn't cover
> >> divergence.
> >
> >I did not "make a point of there being a physical relationship." I
> >discussed your given social relationships in terms of physical
relationships
> >because, well, that's what they are, aren't they? As I stated above, the
> >environment in which a population lives can provide selection pressures
just
> >as well as can a social relationship between two organisms in a
population.
>
> Social relationships? I only meant to talk about physical
> relationships for competition. I meant comparitive relationships as
> non-physical.
When I say "social relationship," I'm referring to any contact or exchange
between organisms in a population. This IS my definition so perhaps I
should have made this clear.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "physical relationship," but yes,
competition between alleles is a 'relationship,' so to speak, where one alle
le increases differential reproductive success at the cost of the other.
>
> If this is so you should have answered yes on the first question in
> stead of no. But again, you are at 4 now.
>
> >> If yes go to 3) if no go to 5)
> >>
> >> 3) You neglect all other possible physical relationships on
> >> reproduction, such as mutual decrease, mutual increase, neutrality
> >> etc. therefore your natural selection is unsystematic. (If you begin
> >> to talk about comparison now, and not about physical relationships
> >> then you made a mistake and must go back to 1)
> >
> >Apparently nothing that I have said has made any difference in your
opinion,
> >regardless of the lack of evidence on your side. This shows just how
> >dogmatic you are about your opinion.
>
> You can't be here, you are at 4, since you require no physical
> relationships whatsoever (different allelles in different ponds is
> still natural selection according to you.)
I wasn't sure what you meant by "physical relationship" so I just answered
all of them.
>
> >> 4) You are a comparison-Darwinist. Comparisons don't exist in nature.
> >> Physical relationships exist in nature.
>
> Ah, you should go here, but of all places here you write no answer!
>
> <grumble>
>
> >> 5) Uh, by my thinking you shouldn't arrive here, except if you have
> >> rejected natural selection. As a cushion, I still have an alternative
> >> definition of natural selection if you arrive here, that doesn't
> >> require either comparison or competition.
> >
> >Your "alternative definition" makes no difference.
>
> Right. Natural selection would still be false even if I didn't have an
> alternative definition.
No, it wouldn't, and it isn't.
>
> > Natural selection is
> >defined as competition between alleles. If your "alternative defintion"
> >does not define natural selection as competition between alleles, then it
is
> >a false definition. For your information, this is not my personal
> >definition--this is the definition given to me in lecture by my Animal
> >Biology 301 (Intro. to Evol. Biol.) and Animal Biology 346 (Animal
Behav.)
> >professors (just so you know where I got that definition). That is not
> >their "personal" definition--that is THE definition.
>
> Ok. F=m*a, E=mc^2, NS=competition between allelles.
>
> Yeah right. It is just one of the hundred or so definitions of natural
> selection, but never mind. I will accept this definition, as THE one
> you learned definition, and mean to use it correctly in criticizing
> it. I believe there are some alternative definitions for F=m*a also.
> Nothing wrong with having more then one definition.
My intention here was to explain that this definition of natural selection
is the proper definition for the same reason that the term "flu" is often
used loosely by laypersons, although quite a few "flus" are illnesses that
are not actually caused by an influenza viral strain. Since the cause of a
"flu" must actually be caused by a flu virus for a medical professional to
properly call it a flu, this is the proper definition. Thus, since
professionals in evolutionary biology define natural selection as
"competition among alleles," this is the proper definition.
>
> >> If you do arrive here but haven't rejected natural selection, then
> >> please clarify which of these (one, or all, or several of the
> >> possible) physical relationships on reproduction you *require* there
> >> to be to call some event natural selection. +/+, -/-, +/-, 0/+, 0/-,
> >> 0/0. (for instance +/+ means both the "units" through their effects
> >> increase each other's reproduction, and so on)
> >
> >To call an event natural selection, I require that there be competition
> >between alleles. I don't know how I can make this any more clear to you.
>
> You can make this more clear to me by answering if the allelles of
> fish in separate ponds can be in competition with each other.
No, because the fitness of a fish in one pond has bears no influence on the
fitness of a fish from the other pond. In fact, speciation should occur in
these two separate populations, assuming that the populations continue
reproducing and stay around long enough for them to diverge and become
reproductively isolated.
Justin Cobb
>
> Nando
>
Boikat
>
> "Justin Cobb" <jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:4ucqetk5185onf3g6...@4ax.com...
> >> "Justin Cobb" <jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Natural selection is falsified by there being no comparisons in
> >> nature. That is the "emperical evidence that demonstrates natural
> >> selection does not occur".
> >
> >Again I ask, HOW does this demonstrate that natural selection does not
> >occur?
>
> Comparison is a neccessary ingredient of natural selection, and since
> there are no comparisons in nature, there is no natural selection.
>
> Howard said that comparisons are not made, but are reported.
Therefore, they occur anyway. Your argument
collapses.
[snip]
Boikat
Boikat
>
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> >> Cowshit, horseshit, pigshit, chickenshit. A mystical bond of
> >> comparison exists between all shit.
> >
> >I do not think that the word "mystical" means what
> >you think it means. Or is this another example of
> >you making up your own definition of a word so you
> >can weasel around supporting your asinine claims?
>
> Ok then, no mystical bond, but just a natural bond between all shit.
What "bond" other than having a common noun made
up by humans to identify excrement? There is no
"bond" aside from shit being shit. Nothing odd
about that, and is not a problem of any kind. If
there is a problem, could you please explain it
rationally?
>
> " Comparisons have not been observed, they have been manufactured by
> observers."
Misrepresentation or perhaps you are just too
stupid to understand.
>
> "Bullshit."
>
> Cowshit, horseshit, pigshit, chickenshit. A natural bond of comparison
> exists between all shit.
Yes, they all share a common noun that humans
assigned to identify excrement. Big hairy deal.
Did you have a point?
Boikat
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 30 Apr 2001 06:15:52 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Natural selection is falsified by there being no comparisons in
>nature. That is the "emperical evidence that demonstrates natural
>selection does not occur".
Ahhh, lets try a concrete example shall we. There is a species of moth
in England that is either pale or dark, depending on the presence of
an alelle of a single gene. Pale moths are the genotype cc, dark moths
are the genotype cC or CC (the dark alelle is a simple mendelian
dominant). When the pale moths rest on trees with light bark, they are
almost invisible, when the dark moths rest on pale bark, they are
readily visible and found and eaten by birds. When pale moths rest on
dark-barked trees, they are readily seen and eaten by birds, and dark
moths on dark-barked trees are almost invisible.
During the industrial revoltion, pollution darkened the bark of trees
in industrial England. In something like 50 years, dark moths went
from being a rarity to being the dominant moth (cC and CC genotypes
accounted for 95% of all moths in some areas) in polluted forests and
woods due to birds eating the pale moths now higly visible against
dark bark.
This is natural selection, pure and simple. More cC and CC genotype
(dark) moths survived to reproduce than cc genotype (pale) moths.
There was no direct comparison, birds simply ate the moths they saw.
Birds don't think "Hmm, this moth is lighter than that one, I think
I'll eat it", they [metaphorically] think "I can see a moth - eat
it!", and what determines whether they see the moth is whether it is
pale on a dark background or dark on a pale backgound.
In this case the possession of a CC or cC genome had no effect on the
fitness of the cc genome, what mattered was the environment, whether
the trees were dark or light.
Another example is resistance to streptomycin. Bacteria with the codon
AAA at position 42 in the _rSPL_ gene are no different to bacteria
with AGA at position 42 in the _rSPL_ gene, when grown in standard
media. (When grown together in standard media they don't outcompete
one another). Add 10,000 units of streptomycin and all the AAA42
bacteria die off, and the AGA42 bacteria live happliy.
This is selection, no comparisons are being made, but AAA42 bacteria
die in the presence of streptomycin regardless of whether comparisons
are made or not. Again in this example, the possession of the AGA42
genome makes no diffrence to the survival or otherwise of the AAA42
bacteria.
There are other examples where the genome of organisms A _does_ alter
the survival of organims B, examples include competition for acetate
as a carbon source in fermenters.
Cheers! Ian
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
Justin Cobb
His point must be that because different types of shit do not "physically"
(I'm still not sure how he's using that term.) interact with each other in
nature that different turds from the same pile do not compare themselves to
one another.
Justin Cobb
Boikat
*He's* probably not sure either.
> interact with each other in
> nature that different turds from the same pile do not compare themselves to
> one another.
>
This could well be the basis for another one of
those "underwater basket weaving" classed in
college for athletes to take to fill in a "Natural
Science Unit requirement: "Non interactive
Scatological Studies". Utterly pointless, useless
and irrelevant, but sounds "scientific". All the
student has to do is stare at two piles of shit
and take notes of any interaction between the two.
For extra credit, they could observe Nando sitting
next to a pile of horse manure, and see which one
shows first signs of cognitive abilities. I'd put
money on the horse shit.
Boikat
> Justin Cobb
Coffey, Mitchell R
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>>> Comparisons have not been observed, they have been manufactured by
>>>> observers.
"howard hershey" wrote:
>>>Not only are comparisons observed, they are a crucial element of all
>>>experimental science. The "control" in experiments is the crucial "point
of
>>>comparison" against which the "experimental" result is compared. Your
>>>position is even extreme for a postmodernist position that there is no
>>>reality separate from their observation of it. You are now claiming that
>>>even the observation of a comparative difference of any sort is not
really
>>observed, it is manufactured. Are you really claiming that reality does
not
>>>exist independently of our having manufactured it. IOW, you seem to be
>>>saying that I am not really shorter than an adult giraffe, that my
apparent
>>>shorter stature is nothing but something I have manufactured in my own
mind.
>>>In reality, that giraffe is neither shorter, taller, nor the same height
as
>>>I am. Why? Are you claiming that the giraffe does not exist or that it
>>>doesn't have any material reality that would allow its height to be
measured?
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> Obviously that's not what I'm claiming.
"howard hershey" wrote:
>Yes that is what you are claiming.
[snip]
What Nando is claiming is that if two trees fall in the forest, and nobody
is around to hear it, the bigger tree doesn't make more noise...
Mitchell Coffey
--
Posted from smtp-out.na.baesystems.com [208.19.133.17]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
howard hershey
----------
In article <3AEEFE15.5...@smtp-out.na.baesystems.com>,
Actually, he seems (to the extent that he is intelligible) to say that the
bigger tree doesn't cause larger amounts of air motion either. And that,
even if an observer were there, he or she would merely be manufacturing the
idea that the bigger tree was louder rather than actually observing it.
howard hershey
----------
In article <SdnH6.1143$ki5....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Justin Cobb"
<jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> "Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pbaret45j6pgm69np...@4ax.com...
>> "Justin Cobb" <jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> >"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:4ucqetk5185onf3g6...@4ax.com...
>> >> "Justin Cobb" <jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Natural selection is falsified by there being no comparisons in
>> >> nature. That is the "emperical evidence that demonstrates natural
>> >> selection does not occur".
>> >
>> >Again I ask, HOW does this demonstrate that natural selection does not
>> >occur?
>>
>> Comparison is a neccessary ingredient of natural selection, and since
>> there are no comparisons in nature, there is no natural selection.
>>
>> Howard said that comparisons are not made, but are reported.
>
> Natural selection has nothing to do with comparison. Comparison is the
> scientists' job. Natural selection is all about competition between
> alleles.
And natural selection requires comparison of the phenotypes that the
alternate alleles produce.
The above is a little oversimplified. Whether virulence is optimal or not
and whether the optimal strategy of a new infectious agent is to attenuate
its virulence and become more temperate or not depends on how it is spread.
There are examples of evolution of attenuation by new viruses (rabbit pox in
Australia being the most obvious and best documented example; syphilis being
somewhat less well documented, because earlier). But, for some agents, like
cholera that spread by inducing diarrhea, there is no selective reason to
reduce virulence in order to increase spread, since it is virulence that
favors spread. High contagiousness is also useful for measles and chicken
pox (environmentally spread agents). One of the problems of Ebola is that
it is a highly contagious, but requires human-human contact to spread the
virus. Ebola quickly burns itself out in environments that don't have a
sufficiently high density of human-human contact and must be repeatedly
introduced from some resevoir where it is presumably less virulent. There
is actually a lot of very interesting work on the evolutionary constraints
and conditions that make increases (or decreases) in virulence selectively
favored within a virus quasispecies.
> However, we do have coevolution
> occuring here so here is what could happen with a potential host. If a more
> effective or more efficient immune system evolves in a potential host (e.g.,
> new type of immunoglobulin, although this would take a rather long time
> since evolution can only work with what is already there--do I need to
> explain myself here, or is it plain and clear the way I have stated it),
> then the genes of this host should proliferate, given that this occurs "in
> nature," in the absence of human intervention (e.g., veterinary
> treatment--antibiotics, for example--assuming that we are discussing
> bacteria without antibiotic-resistance genes). As you see, natural
> selection can--and does--occur in organisms which engage in mutual-loss
> relationships.
However, natural selection is occurring solely *within* each species. That
is, natural selection favors (or disfavors) the more virulent strain over
the less virulent strain of virus. It favors (or disfavors) the more
resistant strain over the less resistant strain of viral host. Each species
is acting as an environmental constraint that is co-evolving in response to
evolutionary changes in the other species. Co-evolution of species is a
*consequence* of the process of natural selection *within* species.
> As I mentioned before, you haven't made your point clear so
> I had to take a guess as to what exactly your point is. If I have guessed
> wrong, please state your point in a clear, straightforward, concise manner
> and explain why my example does not fit with your point.
>
>>
>> >> The way racists employ kin-selection is in my opinion a
>> >> logical extension of kin-selection theory.
>> >
>> >Mmm hmm, OK, this matters.
>> >
>> >You make +/+ relations into
>> >> +/- relations at the level of the gene. That you explain a +/+
>> >> relation in terms of a +/- relationship evidences quite clearly my
>> >> guess that competition-Darwinists focus on +/- relationships.
>> >
>> >If this is the case, then all "Darwinists" are of the "competition" genre
>> >since NATURAL SELECTION = COMPETITION BETWEEN ALLELES.
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what you think is competition.
>
> I have already stated what I "think is competition"--competition between
> alleles, meaning alleles that are replicated in the gene pool 'survive' and
> those that are not do not 'survive.'
>
>> I think
>> competition only occurs when things physically influence each other,
>> when there is some physical link. But Howard suggested that this isn't
>> the case.
A golf competition is a competition even though the golfers are not
physically influencing each other (by hitting each other over the head with
their clubs or swatting balls in their direction?). Golfers are
individually struggling to achieve the lowest score on this course that they
can and are not even on the same holes at the same times. The winner is
determined by which golfer does so. The winner gets the reward, which can
be substantial.
Alleles compete against each other through by affecting the phenotype of an
organism and thereby potentially significantly (not all phenotypic
differences do) affecting the organism's reproductive success. So if, by
units you mean alternate alleles, it still amounts to saying that the units
are organisms. Those are the units whose reproductive success is measured
to find out what the mean reproductive success of a population with a
particular phenotype was and whether or not there was a differential
reproductive success of alternate phenotypes.
>> You are a comparison-Darwinist
>> (in my terms), and then you believe that competition doesn't require a
>> physical relation. You should go to 4 then.
>
> The link is that alleles within the same population are in the same gene
> pool. I'm guessing this doesn't qualify as a "physical relationship," but
> that is what the link is.
>
>>
>> > Selective pressures can be due to the
>> >environment in which an organism lives, not just the other organism.
> Either
>> >way, though, there is still competition between alleles because alleles
>> >which confer fitness advantages in a given environment will be favored
> over
>> >those alleles which do not confer fitness advantages in said environment.
>>
>> Whatever else that means, it still means that there is no neccessary
>> (functional) physical relationship between competing "units", allelles
>> in this case.
>>
>> Functional meaning, that the presence or absence of one or the other
>> of the competing "units" would make no difference on each respective
>> reproductive success.
Sometimes it does make a difference in the *measurement* of reproductive
success of a particular phenotype whether or not the environment contains
organisms of the alternate phenotype. Sometimes it doesn't. But
differential selection requires that the two phenotypes be present in the
environment and in competition for reproductive success (not necessarily in
direct competition against each other) in that environment. If an
environment has a population without phenotypic difference, all losses are
environmental or random rather than causally related to the difference in
phenotype (as there is no difference in phenotype).
>
> If an organism's alleles are in a different gene pool, thus, essentially
> absent from another organism's gene pool, then the success of the original
> organism's alleles would have no affect on the succes of the other
> organism's alleles.
>
>>
>> A situation with a complete absence of a physical relationship in
>> competition, as with comparing the reproduction of allelles of fish in
>> completely separate ponds for instance, can still be called natural
>> selection.
No, such a case cannot be called natural selection. You can measure the
rate of reproduction in both ponds, but those rates are only used to predict
the direction (and rate) of natural selection, which can only occur when the
two phenotypes are competing (in the broad sense) in the same environment.
>>
>> So this means then that natural selection is a non-physical
>> pseudoscience.
>
> This is not true because the unit of selection is the gene (more precisely,
> the allele).
Actually, the unit of selection is the organism, but because one is
interested in the effect of two alternate phenotypes on selection, the
organisms are usually controlled for or randomized for all other features.
Thus one is looking specifically at the effects of a particular phenotype
(or its alternate) on the reproductive success of the organism. The only
phenotypic differences that have evolutionary consequences are those that
are genetically based. And that is why one is usually looking at the
effects of alternate alleles. Differences in alleles lead to differences in
genotypes leads to differences in phenotypes. By controlling for all other
aspects, then, the mean reproductive success of a population of individuals
with phenotype A (genotype A, due to allele A) are compared to the mean
reproductive success of individuals with phenotype B (genotype B, due to
allele B). If that comparison indicates a significant difference between the
two, then there has been natural selection.
If I earn $50,000 dollars more each year than you do, is my relative
economic success necessarily at your expense? If I observe that people that
have high level skills, on average, earn more than people with few skills,
does that mean that the skilled are doing so at the cost of the less
skilled? Would that mean that in an environment filled with only unskilled
people (say Haiti), that they would earn more and be more successful than
they would if they were in an environment where they were directly competing
with skilled people. Would I be justified in saying that (on average)
education is causally related to economic success? Natural selection is the
equivalent of recognizing that certain things are rewarded in the economic
marketplace.
Natural selection requires that the relative success of one phenotype in
reproducing itself compared to the success of the other be beyond that which
can be explained by chance movements in the frequency of the two alternate
forms. I.e., it requires that the relative success be causally related to
the phenotypic difference.
>
>>
>> If this is so you should have answered yes on the first question in
>> stead of no. But again, you are at 4 now.
>>
>> >> If yes go to 3) if no go to 5)
>> >>
>> >> 3) You neglect all other possible physical relationships on
>> >> reproduction, such as mutual decrease, mutual increase, neutrality
>> >> etc. therefore your natural selection is unsystematic. (If you begin
>> >> to talk about comparison now, and not about physical relationships
>> >> then you made a mistake and must go back to 1)
>> >
>> >Apparently nothing that I have said has made any difference in your
> opinion,
>> >regardless of the lack of evidence on your side. This shows just how
>> >dogmatic you are about your opinion.
>>
>> You can't be here, you are at 4, since you require no physical
>> relationships whatsoever (different allelles in different ponds is
>> still natural selection according to you.)
>
> I wasn't sure what you meant by "physical relationship" so I just answered
> all of them.
>
Nando desperately wants "natural selection" to mean "genocide" by one race
against another. He is severely disappointed that this is not the case.
More fundamentally, there can only be selection if there is variation within
that pond. No variation, no selection. That does not mean that you cannot
measure the reproduction rate of the variant in that pond. But there is no
selection going on in that pond.
"Hans-R. Grümm"
>Natural selection is falsified by there being no comparisons in nature.
That is the >"emperical evidence that demonstrates natural selection does
not occur".
This is a rather silly statement, IMHO.
Imagine a meteorite at a point between the Earth and the Moon. The
comparison between the attraction by the Earth and the attraction by the
Moon decides in which direction it will be accelerated.
HRG.
Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses ....
DDr. Hans-Richard Grümm
Psychotechnisches Institut Wien
Augasse 9
A-2103 Langenzersdorf
Tel. +43-(0)2244 30996 (Fax-DW 22)
--
Posted from mail.xpoint.at [195.2.0.11]
Justin Cobb
<snip portions from my discussion with Nando>
> > Natural selection has nothing to do with comparison. Comparison is the
> > scientists' job. Natural selection is all about competition between
> > alleles.
>
> And natural selection requires comparison of the phenotypes that the
> alternate alleles produce.
Yes, but my point was that organisms with alternate alleles which better
adapt the organism to its environment will have higher differential
reproductive success (thus, leave more replicas of their alternate alleles)
than those organisms whose alleles do not adapt the organism as well to its
respective environment and, thus, have lower differential reproductive
success in comparison to the other organism mentioned in this paragraph. (I
didn't go into this much detail, although I guess I should have.) What I
was trying to get across was that although scientists determine differential
reproductive success by comparison of one organism to others in its
population, these comparisons are made by the scientist rather than the
organism itself. The organism just replicates its alleles. An organism
competes with others within its population for resources which will
contribute to its fitness, but even if this organism does not have an
opportunity to reproduce in its lifetime, it may benefit in terms of
indirect fitness if it has a sibling that is able to reproduce within its
lifetime and, thus, replicate alleles that the two siblings share.
I hope I understood your point as you intended. If I did not, just say so.
I appreciate your feedback.
<snip more me v. Nando>
True. This was just intended as an example of how natural selection works
in a pathogen-host relationship. It is a bit oversimplified--there is
certainly a lot more to a pathgen-host relationship than just virulence and
immunity--but all I really needed was a simple example just to get my point
across since Nando just wanted to know how natural selection would work in a
"-/-" relationship.
True. Basically, what I was trying to say was just that. I was treating
bacteria and hosts as environmental constraints on each other. After
rereading my statements, I guess I just didn't tie my discussions on the two
very well at all in my example.
<snip more me v. Nando>
> >> >> 1) Do you require there to be a physical relationship (where units
> >> >> influence each other's reproduction) to call some event or sequence
of
> >> >> events natural selection?
> >> >
> >> >No, there does not have to be a physical relationship between
organisms
> > for
> >> >natural selection to occur.
> >>
> >> I didn't say organisms, I said units.
>
> Alleles compete against each other through by affecting the phenotype of
an
> organism and thereby potentially significantly (not all phenotypic
> differences do) affecting the organism's reproductive success. So if, by
> units you mean alternate alleles, it still amounts to saying that the
units
> are organisms. Those are the units whose
If it is only direct fitness that is being considered, then it does indeed
amount to saying that the units are the organisms. However, with indirect
selection, an alternate allele can still survive even if an organism with
this allele does not reproduce, provided that a relative bearing this allele
reproduces. Thus, in this respect, alternate alleles are units of
selection.
It is important, I feel, to consider the alleles themselves when discussing
natural selection because indirect selection plays a very important role in
evolution. For example, without indirect selection, eusociality has no
sufficient ultimate explanation because many eusocial species have members
who are sterile. In terms of only direct selection, natural selection would
predict that sterile castes would not evolve because they cannot reproduce
(i.e., replicate their alleles) so indirect selection must also be
considered when determining ultimate causation, especially when studying
behavior.
<snip>
It all boils down to the level of genes, though. Yes, genes determine
phenotype, and with interaction between phenotype and environment, this
determines how well an organism is adapted to its environment. However,
because genes determine phenotypes, which, in turn, interact with the
organism's environment, it is really the genes that are being selected
against. True, less-adaptive alleles may be replicated by the organism as
well as its more-adaptive alleles--and perhaps this is why you consider the
organism to be a unit of selection (again, correct me if this is not how you
look at it)--but again, genes are what determine phenotype to begin with so
it is at the level of genes where natural selection acts. Again, this is
important for indirect selection, which I have already discussed.
I certainly hope that this explains my logic behind, "The allele is the unit
of selection."
Having more economic power than another person would be analogous to
comparing to different populations. You spending your money does not affect
the amount of money that I have. However, let's suppose you and I open a
joint checking account and we both act in our own self-interest. If you
have an ATM card and all I have are checks, you would have the advantage in
this situation because of your quicker and easier access to our money. The
same goes for two members of the same population. Granted, if a phenotype
(in essence, a gene) is adaptive, an organism with this phenotype should be
able to reproduce. However, organisms act (not knowing so nor with
conscious intention) on behalf of their own self-interest--or I should say,
for the sake of their genome and that of no one else so if an organism, for
example, is a more efficient forager than others in its population, then it
will be better nourished (assuming that all other variables are the same
throughout the population in this example). Because it will benefit more
than others in terms of caloric return and time saved by efficient foraging,
and incur less cost in terms of energy expended and time required to forage,
it will be able to produce more offspring than others. This is at the cost
of the rest of the population because resources are not limitless. Thus,
those individuals will get less to eat and, in turn, have less fecundity
than the one that is a more effective, more efficient forager.
<snip>
> > I wasn't sure what you meant by "physical relationship" so I just
answered
> > all of them.
> >
> Nando desperately wants "natural selection" to mean "genocide" by one race
> against another. He is severely disappointed that this is not the case.
Uh oh, you figured him out. He's going to "move the target" and make up
another definition for natural selection.
<snip>
> >> You can make this more clear to me by answering if the allelles of
> >> fish in separate ponds can be in competition with each other.
> >
> > No, because the fitness of a fish in one pond has bears no influence on
the
> > fitness of a fish from the other pond.
>
> More fundamentally, there can only be selection if there is variation
within
> that pond. No variation, no selection. That does not mean that you
cannot
> measure the reproduction rate of the variant in that pond. But there is
no
> selection going on in that pond.
I agree with you on this. I should have mentioned it. I probably just took
the necessity of variation in a population for granted or as a given.
<snip>
Well, Howard, it's apparent that we basically agree, except perhaps for
minute details such as "unit of selection" and your "$50000" example (your
analogy comparing inequality in economic power/educational attainment to
natural selection--perhaps this is what Nando means by
"comparison-Darwinist"). Again, I appreciate the feedback.
Justin Cobb
Justin Cobb
> This could well be the basis for another one of
> those "underwater basket weaving" classed in
> college for athletes to take to fill in a "Natural
> Science Unit requirement: "Non interactive
> Scatological Studies". Utterly pointless,
They must already have that here. I always hear one or two of my classmates
bitch about having to fulfill "all these bullshit gen. ed. requirements."
Justin Cobb
howard hershey
----------
In article <ZXHH6.1741$ki5....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Justin Cobb"
<jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> <snip portions from my discussion with Nando>
>
>> > Natural selection has nothing to do with comparison. Comparison is the
>> > scientists' job. Natural selection is all about competition between
>> > alleles.
>>
>> And natural selection requires comparison of the phenotypes that the
>> alternate alleles produce.
>
> Yes, but my point was that organisms with alternate alleles which better
> adapt the organism to its environment will have higher differential
> reproductive success (thus, leave more replicas of their alternate alleles)
> than those organisms whose alleles do not adapt the organism as well to its
> respective environment and, thus, have lower differential reproductive
> success in comparison to the other organism mentioned in this paragraph. (I
> didn't go into this much detail, although I guess I should have.) What I
> was trying to get across was that although scientists determine differential
> reproductive success by comparison of one organism to others in its
> population, these comparisons are made by the scientist rather than the
> organism itself.
Not necessarily. Sexual selection involves mate choices by the organisms
themselves. When a larger pack member gets first crack at the yummy
nutritious corpse, that is due to a comparison (a weighting of the relative
risk to reward that comes from challenging the alpha male) that the
organisms themselves make. But I agree that many comparisons of success are
observations of reality (that some phenotypes are more successful than
others in any particular environment) that are made by a scientist rather
than involving the organisms directly comparing themselves to each other.
> The organism just replicates its alleles. An organism
> competes with others within its population for resources which will
> contribute to its fitness, but even if this organism does not have an
> opportunity to reproduce in its lifetime, it may benefit in terms of
> indirect fitness if it has a sibling that is able to reproduce within its
> lifetime and, thus, replicate alleles that the two siblings share.
Hence altruism, which is clearly one of the counterintuitive tests of
natural selection.
>
> I hope I understood your point as you intended. If I did not, just say so.
> I appreciate your feedback.
>
> <snip more me v. Nando>
>
> True. This was just intended as an example of how natural selection works
> in a pathogen-host relationship. It is a bit oversimplified--there is
> certainly a lot more to a pathgen-host relationship than just virulence and
> immunity--but all I really needed was a simple example just to get my point
> across since Nando just wanted to know how natural selection would work in a
> "-/-" relationship.
>
Simplification doesn't work, either, in explaining natural selection to
Nando. He won't accept any definition of natural selection that does not
state that natural selection is genocidal bloody murder. Better to be
accurate for the sake of lurkers.
> True. Basically, what I was trying to say was just that. I was treating
> bacteria and hosts as environmental constraints on each other. After
> rereading my statements, I guess I just didn't tie my discussions on the two
> very well at all in my example.
>
> <snip more me v. Nando>
>
>> >> >> 1) Do you require there to be a physical relationship (where units
>> >> >> influence each other's reproduction) to call some event or sequence
> of
>> >> >> events natural selection?
>> >> >
>> >> >No, there does not have to be a physical relationship between
> organisms
>> > for
>> >> >natural selection to occur.
>> >>
>> >> I didn't say organisms, I said units.
>>
>> Alleles compete against each other through by affecting the phenotype of
> an
>> organism and thereby potentially significantly (not all phenotypic
>> differences do) affecting the organism's reproductive success. So if, by
>> units you mean alternate alleles, it still amounts to saying that the
> units
>> are organisms. Those are the units whose
>
> If it is only direct fitness that is being considered, then it does indeed
> amount to saying that the units are the organisms. However, with indirect
> selection, an alternate allele can still survive even if an organism with
> this allele does not reproduce, provided that a relative bearing this allele
> reproduces. Thus, in this respect, alternate alleles are units of
> selection.
You are probably thinking of alturism-related traits (traits in which an
organism sacrifices itself or its reproductive potential to increase the
chances of genetically related organisms to reproduce more than would be
expected). Such traits are only selected for if, *on average*, individuals
who exhibit that contain the allele for altruism are more reproductively
successful than those who don't. That requires the right combination of
social structure needed in a particular niche, genetic relationship, and the
rarity and extent of self-sacrifice needed. But if the relatives with the
altruism allele do not compensate for the sacrifice by having compensating
greater reproductive success, the allele will not be selected for.
>
> It is important, I feel, to consider the alleles themselves when discussing
> natural selection because indirect selection plays a very important role in
> evolution. For example, without indirect selection, eusociality has no
> sufficient ultimate explanation because many eusocial species have members
> who are sterile. In terms of only direct selection, natural selection would
> predict that sterile castes would not evolve because they cannot reproduce
> (i.e., replicate their alleles) so indirect selection must also be
> considered when determining ultimate causation, especially when studying
> behavior.
The evolution of mechanisms that allow an individual to be the only fertile
member of a group is ultimately a selfish trick (and one that does
occasionally gets sabotaged). Once that trick has evolved, the sterile
members have only one way to get their alleles transferred to the next
generation, be the mindless autonomatons that help the queen. The real
question for biologists is whether the colony is the now unit of
reproduction rather than what we call the individual organisms. The idea of
what constitutes an individual is a bit trickier in biology than one might
think.
>
> <snip>
> It all boils down to the level of genes, though. Yes, genes determine
> phenotype, and with interaction between phenotype and environment, this
> determines how well an organism is adapted to its environment.
Genes do not always determine phenotype. There are many birth defects and
abnormalities that mimic genetic defects that are not genetic in basis, but
simply a developmental abnormality. For example, exposure to thalidomide
produces individuals with 'seal-limbs'. There are genetic traits that
produce similar defects. Nature, of course, cannot distinguish between
them. It treats them equally ruthlessly or equally compassionately
(depending upon the environment -- in ancient Greece, both would put out for
the wolves to eat, in modern America, they would get a government subsidy to
help them cope). Selection works on phenotype, regardless of whether the
phenotype has a genetic basis or an environmental or accidental basis (the
selective result is the same whether you are born acephalic because of genes
or developmental abnormality or because you stuck your head out the car
window in front of the semi-truck).
But, of course, only phenotypic differences that are genetically based
(transmitted to future generations) are relevant to evolution. So, in this
case, we are only concerned with evolutionarily-relevant natural selection.
> However,
> because genes determine phenotypes, which, in turn, interact with the
> organism's environment, it is really the genes that are being selected
> against. True, less-adaptive alleles may be replicated by the organism as
> well as its more-adaptive alleles--and perhaps this is why you consider the
> organism to be a unit of selection (again, correct me if this is not how you
> look at it)--but again, genes are what determine phenotype to begin with so
> it is at the level of genes where natural selection acts. Again, this is
> important for indirect selection, which I have already discussed.
>
> I certainly hope that this explains my logic behind, "The allele is the unit
> of selection."
I understand the logic. It is an easy leap. But natural selection does
also work on phenotypes that are not genetically based, and was originally
defined and described at a time when the genetic mechanism was unknown. For
evolutionarily-relevant selection, the ultimate unit which is selected is
the allele. But natural selection occurs and is not limited to
evolutionarily-relevant natural selection.
>
[snip]
Nando Ronteltap
<snip>
Enough about comparison. Since you require direct physical
competition, I go with that.
>Simple example.
> Time: 1 2 3 4 5 6
>Strain A alone in lactose media: 2 4 8 16 32 64
>Strain B alone in lactose media: 4 16 64 256 1024 4096
>
>Strain B grows twice as fast in lactose media as strain A. Both, at this
>point, are in log phase and doubling as fast as they can. But by 6 units of
>time, we see 64 times as many strain B cells.
>
>Now we grow both strains in the same batch of media and see the same result.
>That says that the growth rates seen without competition are the same as
>those seen with direct competition.
If there is no difference between together and apart then there is no
competition.
> Natural selection requires that the
>phenotypes be in competition for the same resources.
If after some time the bacteria-strains reach a resourcelimit, then
there may be competition for resources.
> Otherwise, you simply
>have different levels of growth of a strain.
Indeed, and that is exactly what you have still.
> If you are the only game in
>town, it doesn't matter what an alternative can do. It only matters when
>you start competing for resources (related to reproductive success).
So what would happen then? Truth is you don't know, except for seeing
what happens. On strict terms your comparison while apart is useless.
I can imagine any number of just-so scenario's that make your
prediction false. For instance, A has slow but secure reproduction,
while B hast fast but insecure reproduction.
I hazard to think that large hurds of elephants walk through this
loophole you left in your theory. The loophole that apart and together
are 2 different situations.
BTW you better shut your mouth about me desperately wanting natural
selection to mean genocide as you write in some other post.
Darwin started out with writing.... the races encroach on each other
untill some finally become *extinct*, as his *main* proposition of
natural selection among human beings, and then later in the book he
wrote... *extinction* follows *chiefly* by competition of tribe with
tribe and race with race....blablabla... war, slaughter, cannabalism
and absorption.
The most straightforward way to read the book is to take the
proposition at the start, and then go to where he says how this main
proposition *chiefly* occurs. This is what you would do with any other
book in taking out the things to remember most.
Don't see this as me trashing Darwin for associating natural selection
with something like cannabalism. See this as me saying that I think
you are a better scientist then Darwin, and you wouldn't write stuff
like that.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>> Bladibla. You have not been addressing my points. You clearly are not
Bladiblabablabablablabla.......
Sorry....... but I don't actually read paragraphs like you write
above. I'm interested in the fundamentals of natural selection
(fundamentals like Mendel did make for his theory, and Darwin
neglected to make for natural selection).
A scientific model of natural selection. Those are not in any
Darwinist book. What is in Darwinist books is the same kind of stuff
you write and Darwin writes.
(actually I did read your paragraph now, natural selection doesn't
occur between species, doesn't occur between virus and
immunesystem/organism etc.)
What you do is not a smart way to make a theory scientific. (it
incedentally is a smart way to avoid criticism of a theory)
For instance saying that a competitive relationship is required, where
one unit increases reproduction at the cost of reproduction of another
unit, to call some event natural selection, is trying to be scientific
about it.
Then going into more abstract symbols in stead of plain language,
express that as a, +/- relationship on reproduction.
And then being systematic, put this particular relationship in the
context of all theoretically possible relationships on reproductive
success.
+/+ Mutual benefit
-/- Mutual cost
0/0 No (net) benefit or cost
-/0 cost, without benefit
+/0 benefit without cost
+/- benefit with cost
So now it becomes exceedingly clear (to me at least), the focus on
one particular type of relationship on reproductive success with
natural selection. Natural selection covers just 1 from 6
theoretically possible, +/-.
If there would be only +/- relationships on reproduction in nature,
then natural selection would be legitimate. This is not the case,
AFAIK all these relationships exist in nature.
I can see no justification for focusing on this one particular +/-
relationship, and ignore the other 5 types of relationships on
reproduction between units.
So please justify your focus on this particular +/- relationship.
>> Is competition between allelles a physical relation where the one
>> allelle increases reproduction at the cost of the other?
>
>I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "physical relationship," but yes,
>competition between alleles is a 'relationship,' so to speak, where one alle
>le increases differential reproductive success at the cost of the other.
So then you have covered 1 relationship on reproductive success
between allelles, a +/- relationship.
Nando
Justin Cobb
<snip>
Good point. However, with respect to sexual selection, with mate choice
there is always intrasexual competition occuring as well between individuals
the "less-choosier" sex. Also, oftentimes conflicts of interests arise
between the sexes (e.g., sex with lower cost in mating wants to have as many
mates as possible while their mates may not want to share
resources--parental care, resources, etc.--with other individuals).
<snip>
> Simplification doesn't work, either, in explaining natural selection to
> Nando. He won't accept any definition of natural selection that does not
> state that natural selection is genocidal bloody murder. Better to be
> accurate for the sake of lurkers.
Yeah, I just wish there was a simple way to educate the general public on
evolution and natural selection. There seems to be a lot of
misunderstanding among many laypersons. I think that perhaps a better
understanding would dissuade polititians from vying for "equal time" just to
satisfy constituents.
<snip>
> > If it is only direct fitness that is being considered, then it does
indeed
> > amount to saying that the units are the organisms. However, with
indirect
> > selection, an alternate allele can still survive even if an organism
with
> > this allele does not reproduce, provided that a relative bearing this
allele
> > reproduces. Thus, in this respect, alternate alleles are units of
> > selection.
>
> You are probably thinking of alturism-related traits (traits in which an
> organism sacrifices itself or its reproductive potential to increase the
> chances of genetically related organisms to reproduce more than would be
> expected). Such traits are only selected for if, *on average*,
individuals
> who exhibit that contain the allele for altruism are more reproductively
> successful than those who don't. That requires the right combination of
> social structure needed in a particular niche, genetic relationship, and
the
> rarity and extent of self-sacrifice needed. But if the relatives with the
> altruism allele do not compensate for the sacrifice by having compensating
> greater reproductive success, the allele will not be selected for.
True, but even with respect to traits that are not related to altruism,
indirect selection can be involved in replicating genes a non-reproducing
individual shares with a relative. Of course, the non-reprod. individual
only benefits by having half of its genes replicated.
This brings up a point that I should address. I talked to one of my
professors today, and he told me that the unit of selection can be either
the gene or the individual, depending on the context, so it appears that
both of us are correct in different respects.
<snip>
Some researchers are now considering the possibility that honey bee colonies
might be considered a "superorganism," a new level of biological
organization made up of individuals whose actions benefit the fitness of the
colony as a whole. This new level of organization is supposed to stem from
the influences of indirect selection and haplodiploidy in honey bees on the
evolution of their eusociality.
I read an article earlier this semester by Thomas D. Seeley. (I can't
remember off-hand which university he is at.) This article discusses honey
bee colonies as superorganisms. I can find it again and provide a reference
if you would like.
<snip>
Yes, I was concerned specifically with evolutionarily-relevant natural
selection. It is true, though, that selective pressures do not exclusively
act on genetically-determined traits.
It is also worth noting that there are some documented examples of
"Lamarckian" inheritance. One study showed that hydras infected with
'Euglena', which turned them green, can pass this trait on in their
offspring. I'm not sure whether or not this only applies to asexual
budding, but it has been determined that acquired characteristics can be
passed on in a Lamarckian manner if the characteristics are incorporated in
the cytoplasm and are self-replicating. I should note, though, that such
characteristic serve only as a source of variation since natural selection
is still applicable.
I find it rather interesting that natural selection can act in such a broad
manner.
Justin Cobb
<snip>
Justin Cobb
> Bladiblabablabablablabla.......
> Sorry....... but I don't actually read paragraphs like you write
> above. I'm interested in the fundamentals of natural selection
> (fundamentals like Mendel did make for his theory, and Darwin
> neglected to make for natural selection).
> A scientific model of natural selection.
EXAMPLE MODEL BASED ON THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION:
1. Variation occurs within a population.
2. Selective pressures (environmental constraints, competition, etc.) act
on said variation.
3. If this variation is adaptive, it will be replicated in the population
(i.e., the organism with the variation will reproduce). If the variation is
not adaptive, it will not be replicated in the population.
<snip irrelevant rant>
What you do is not a smart way to make a theory scientific. (it
> incedentally is a smart way to avoid criticism of a theory)
Scientific theories are made by making predictions, testing those
predictions, and organizing the results in a relevant manner. A scientific
theory must be falsifiable. That is, it must be testable for its validity.
Theories may even stem from and add to other theories--punctuated
equilibrium theory stems from evolutionary theory, for example. Theories
may be deductible from other theories (although they do not have to be
deductible from other theories)--gravity can be predicted by the definition
of force, based on observations of mass being accelerated as they fall.
I'm just giving the facts of natural selection, and I'm doing so to prevent
others who may be following this thread from being misinformed.
<snip>
> So then you have covered 1 relationship on reproductive success
> between allelles, a +/- relationship.
Cut the bullshit, Nando. I have covered the workings of natural selection
in great detail and to great length. I have discussed -/- relationships
with my pathogen-host example. I have discussed +/+ relationships with my
altruism examples (PLURAL!). I can't think of an example of a 0/0
relationship because it doesn't exist, assuming that you define a
relationship as some sort of exchange or interaction between organism. It
is apparent to me (and probably to many others) that you have no interest in
hearing the truth about natural selection. All it seems to me that you want
is to further a personal agenda.
If this isn't the case and you do indeed want questions answered, feel free
to offer your questions. Make them straightforward, using standard
definitions of science-related words as opposed to your own personal
definitions. Do not change definitions from one post to the next. Do offer
clear explanations if you feel that it is necessary to get your point
across. So far, you haven't done so, although I have asked you to do so
several times.
Justin Cobb
>
> Nando
>
Dave Horn
>
> "howard hershey" <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
[Snip]
Howard is doing a wonderful job of showing the vacuous nature of Ronteltap's
ignorant rantings about natural selection, so I will return to a couple of
things Nando has said but would appear to prefer that we forget.
First, Ronteltap claimed that the "biology community" agreed with his
evaluation of Darwin's work as a "revolting piece of stinking shit." He has
been challenged a number of times to provide evidence for this and has
avoided this issue.
Ronteltap recently told us that his readings of the Bible led him to the
"quite normal thoughts" (or something to that effect) that "the jews are
bad" because they allegedly killed Jesus. Ronteltap made this statement in
the midst of his normal rantings about natural selection and Darwinism as
racist or somehow bigoted in nature. How less a bigot is Ronteltap when he
claims that his readings of the Bible lead to these "quite normal thoughts"
that Jews are bad?
He won't say.
Victor Eijkhout
> EXAMPLE MODEL BASED ON THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION:
>
> 1. Variation occurs within a population.
>
> 2. Selective pressures (environmental constraints, competition, etc.) act
> on said variation.
>
> 3. If this variation is adaptive, it will be replicated in the population
> (i.e., the organism with the variation will reproduce). If the variation is
> not adaptive, it will not be replicated in the population.
What does "adaptive" mean?
--
Victor Eijkhout
"One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some
fantastic pictures." [G.W. Bush]
howard hershey
----------
In article <9c6vet4ni34hkl1uu...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
<onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "howard hershey" <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Enough about comparison. Since you require direct physical
> competition, I go with that.
>
>>Simple example.
>> Time: 1 2 3 4 5 6
>>Strain A alone in lactose media: 2 4 8 16 32 64
>>Strain B alone in lactose media: 4 16 64 256 1024 4096
>>
>>Strain B grows twice as fast in lactose media as strain A. Both, at this
>>point, are in log phase and doubling as fast as they can. But by 6 units of
>>time, we see 64 times as many strain B cells.
>>
>>Now we grow both strains in the same batch of media and see the same result.
>>That says that the growth rates seen without competition are the same as
>>those seen with direct competition.
>
> If there is no difference between together and apart then there is no
> competition.
When the two are together there is competition for reproductive success in
that environment, so there can be *differential* reproductive success in
that environment. And, of course, there *is* differential reproductive
success in that environment. In the environments where the two are in
monoculture, there is no *differential* reproductive success, because there
is no difference in that culture. Natural selection requires that there be
actual *differential* reproductive success, not just the potential that
there will be *differential* reproductive success if the two were in the
same environment.
>
>> Natural selection requires that the
>>phenotypes be in competition for the same resources.
>
> If after some time the bacteria-strains reach a resourcelimit, then
> there may be competition for resources.
In the meantime there will have been differential reproductive success,
because one of the phenotypes is better able to reproduce in that
environment.
>
>> Otherwise, you simply
>>have different levels of growth of a strain.
>
> Indeed, and that is exactly what you have still.
No. I have *differential* reproductive success. I do not have
*differential* reproductive success in a monoculture.
>
>> If you are the only game in
>>town, it doesn't matter what an alternative can do. It only matters when
>>you start competing for resources (related to reproductive success).
>
> So what would happen then? Truth is you don't know, except for seeing
> what happens. On strict terms your comparison while apart is useless.
In practical terms it is quite useful. But, sure, measurements of
differential reproductive success is better and more accurate than
predictions of differential reproductive success. But the two are often
close enough not to matter for practical purposes. And I have previously
described the conditions when such predictions are more likely to be useful
and when they will be less useful.
>
> I can imagine any number of just-so scenario's that make your
> prediction false. For instance, A has slow but secure reproduction,
> while B hast fast but insecure reproduction.
The result is what counts. Is there differential reproductive success?
>
> I hazard to think that large hurds of elephants walk through this
> loophole you left in your theory. The loophole that apart and together
> are 2 different situations.
Yes, they are different. But, as I have said, because 'competition' need
not be against each other, but only 'for' reproductive success, in the
latter cases, the 2 situations are not that different in measuring
reproductive success.
>
> BTW you better shut your mouth about me desperately wanting natural
> selection to mean genocide as you write in some other post.
Why? It certainly seems to be true.
>
> Darwin started out with writing.... the races encroach on each other
> untill some finally become *extinct*, as his *main* proposition of
> natural selection among human beings, and then later in the book he
> wrote... *extinction* follows *chiefly* by competition of tribe with
> tribe and race with race....blablabla... war, slaughter, cannabalism
> and absorption.
Which parts are direct quotes? And which is your fetid imagination?
> The most straightforward way to read the book is to take the
> proposition at the start, and then go to where he says how this main
> proposition *chiefly* occurs. This is what you would do with any other
> book in taking out the things to remember most.
I have repeatedly said that this is a silly way to judge a book.
>
> Don't see this as me trashing Darwin for associating natural selection
> with something like cannabalism. See this as me saying that I think
> you are a better scientist then Darwin, and you wouldn't write stuff
> like that.
Nor would I try to refute Darwin by using the example that Fleeming Jenkins
used. Hint: It has to do with the superiority of whites relative to blacks.
>
> Nando
>
Justin Cobb
> What does "adaptive" mean?
Adaptive means, roughly, that the trait confers some sort of advantage in
competing with other members of the population. Basically, an adaptation is
any trait which allows the organism to live to successfully reproduce in its
environment and "hopefully" reproduce more than others in its population.
Justin Cobb
Nando Ronteltap
clear answer that refute my points.
You wrote a lot of stuff, obviously you are well read in the material,
but only 2 bits you wrote were really of interest to me.
*1)First is that natural selection exclusively deals with
relationships between units where one in effect increases reproduction
at the cost of reproduction of the other. This relation is
prerequisite to call some event natural selection. (The answer to the
250 guilders question)
*2)Second is the justification for the focus on this particular
competitive type of relationship. Only this kind of competitive
relationship demonstrates a difference in reproductive success that is
related to a phenotype.
Obviously this is untrue. You don't demonstrate a difference in
reproductive success, you demonstrate a relation of encroachment, a
benefit with cost relation. You confuse a comparison with competition,
so in this way you don't actually know the relation between the units
in natural selection. This is mainly evidenced to me by that you only
mentioned the relation was a cost-benefit relation after 6 lenghty
posts or so, and that you were hard put to call the malaria-example a
cost-benefit relation. As before, Natural Selection is just one of
many types of relations between units.
+/- benefit with cost (natural selection: the only one you deal with)
+/+ mutual benefit
-/- mutual cost
0/0 no (net) benefit or cost
-/0 cost, without benefit
+/0 benefit without cost
So to speak, Natural Selection describes 1/6 about the relations
between units on reproduction. So you ignore 5 types of relationships
with Natural Selection, which makes Natural Selection proposterous
non-science.
What is most damaging of all is that it doesn't even mention the most
important thing about any reproductive unit in nature. Which is the
chance a reproductive unit has at any given time, to a future event of
reproduction.
Seeing that you never write anything that comes even close to dealing
with the problems I have clearly explained to have with Natural
Selection, I fear we just must continue to disagree.
1)
>> Do you exclusively deal with physical relationships where one
>> increases reproduction at the cost of reproduction of the other?
>
>Because natural selection requires that there be differential reproduction,
>only cases where there is a significant difference in reproductive success
>can be attributed to natural selection. Changes in allele frequency in a
>population that are not due to natural selection are due to chance. So the
>answer is yes.
2)
>It is perfectly systematic to include in natural selection only those cases
>where the difference in reproductive success is causally related to the
>difference in alternative phenotypes and to *not* include cases where there
>is no significant difference related to the phenotype. Any differences in
>these other cases may be due to environmental differences or pure chance,
>but are not natural selection, which requires that the phenotypic difference
>cause a significant effect.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
Nando:
>> So then you have covered 1 relationship on reproductive success
>> between allelles, a +/- relationship.
>
>Cut the bullshit, Nando. I have covered the workings of natural selection
>in great detail and to great length. I have discussed -/- relationships
>with my pathogen-host example. I have discussed +/+ relationships with my
>altruism examples (PLURAL!). I can't think of an example of a 0/0
>relationship because it doesn't exist, assuming that you define a
>relationship as some sort of exchange or interaction between organism. It
>is apparent to me (and probably to many others) that you have no interest in
>hearing the truth about natural selection. All it seems to me that you want
>is to further a personal agenda.
Oh bullshit yourself. You fail to mention that you explain +/+ and -/-
relationships in terms of +/- relationships. I know there to be +/+
and -/- relationships etc. at the "level" of the gene/allelle (or
whatever is the unit you are using). Remarkably you say that such +/-
relationships do not exist at that "level". You could have simply
stated that they did exist, but that that they weren't covered by
Natural Selection, but you choose to deny reality, which is absurd.
>If this isn't the case and you do indeed want questions answered, feel free
>to offer your questions. Make them straightforward, using standard
>definitions of science-related words as opposed to your own personal
>definitions. Do not change definitions from one post to the next. Do offer
>clear explanations if you feel that it is necessary to get your point
>across. So far, you haven't done so, although I have asked you to do so
>several times.
Sorry, but as the last post is the most clear I can make it, so I will
just repost it again, in the hope that you can actually refute
something.
To refute it to me you have to write something like: The +/-
relationship has exclusive focus in Natural Selection, ignoring the 5
other types of relationships, because.....
(.....because Natural Selection is defined that way, yeah I know)
----
And then being systematic, put this particular relationship in the
context of all theoretically possible relationships on reproductive
success.
+/+ Mutual benefit
-/- Mutual cost
0/0 No (net) benefit or cost
-/0 cost, without benefit
+/0 benefit without cost
+/- benefit with cost
So now it becomes exceedingly clear (to me at least), the focus on
one particular type of relationship on reproductive success with
natural selection. Natural selection covers just 1 from 6
theoretically possible, +/-.
If there would be only +/- relationships on reproduction in nature,
then natural selection would be legitimate. This is not the case,
AFAIK all these relationships exist in nature.
I can see no justification for focusing on this one particular +/-
relationship, and ignore the other 5 types of relationships on
reproduction between units.
So please justify your focus on this particular +/- relationship
Nando
Justin Cobb
> "Justin Cobb" <jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Nando:
> >> So then you have covered 1 relationship on reproductive success
> >> between allelles, a +/- relationship.
> >
> >Cut the bullshit, Nando. I have covered the workings of natural
selection
> >in great detail and to great length. I have discussed -/- relationships
> >with my pathogen-host example. I have discussed +/+ relationships with
my
> >altruism examples (PLURAL!). I can't think of an example of a 0/0
> >relationship because it doesn't exist, assuming that you define a
> >relationship as some sort of exchange or interaction between organism.
It
> >is apparent to me (and probably to many others) that you have no interest
in
> >hearing the truth about natural selection. All it seems to me that you
want
> >is to further a personal agenda.
>
> Oh bullshit yourself. You fail to mention that you explain +/+ and -/-
> relationships in terms of +/- relationships.
Yes, I explain them in terms of competition at the gene level. That must be
why you consider me to be a "competition-Darwinist."
I know there to be +/+
> and -/- relationships etc. at the "level" of the gene/allelle (or
> whatever is the unit you are using). Remarkably you say that such +/-
> relationships do not exist at that "level".
When did I say this, Nando? What does "competition among alleles" mean to
you?
You could have simply
> stated that they did exist, but that that they weren't covered by
> Natural Selection, but you choose to deny reality, which is absurd.
They are covered by natural selection, and I have explained how in great
detail. Someone here is denying reality, and it sure isn't me.
Regardless of the type of relationship between individuals, these
relationships serve to affect the differential reproductive success (i.e.,
differential success in replicating genes) of the individuals involved. I
have already explained this several times. How could these relationships
NOT have anything to do with affecting differential reproductive success,
and how could differential reproductive success not mean competition among
alleles?
Justin Cobb
>
> Nando
>
Nando Ronteltap
wrote:
>G'Day All
>Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>
>On 30 Apr 2001 06:15:52 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Natural selection is falsified by there being no comparisons in
>>nature. That is the "emperical evidence that demonstrates natural
>>selection does not occur".
>
>Ahhh, lets try a concrete example shall we. There is a species of moth
>in England that is either pale or dark, depending on the presence of
>an alelle of a single gene. Pale moths are the genotype cc, dark moths
>are the genotype cC or CC (the dark alelle is a simple mendelian
>dominant). When the pale moths rest on trees with light bark, they are
>almost invisible, when the dark moths rest on pale bark, they are
>readily visible and found and eaten by birds. When pale moths rest on
>dark-barked trees, they are readily seen and eaten by birds, and dark
>moths on dark-barked trees are almost invisible.
>
>During the industrial revoltion, pollution darkened the bark of trees
>in industrial England. In something like 50 years, dark moths went
>from being a rarity to being the dominant moth (cC and CC genotypes
>accounted for 95% of all moths in some areas) in polluted forests and
>woods due to birds eating the pale moths now higly visible against
>dark bark.
>
>This is natural selection, pure and simple. More cC and CC genotype
>(dark) moths survived to reproduce than cc genotype (pale) moths.
The moth example is not as simple as you might think. What's peculiar
is that making white trees black, make two environmental changes that
apply to reproduction.
- more camouflage resources for black moths.
- less camouflage resources for white moths.
So there are also two explanations:
1)Dark colored moths had a higher reproductive success because light
colored moths suffered a higher predation rate. The decline of light
colored alleles was caused by light colored individuals being removed
from the gene pool (selected against).
2)Dark colored moths had higher reproductive success then white
because they had more places for camouflage.
And again, natural selection is false for what it doesn't say, for the
5 types of relations it doesn't cover. It only covers cost-benefit
relations, and not benefit-benefit or cost-cost etc.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>>I know there to be +/+
>> and -/- relationships etc. at the "level" of the gene/allelle (or
>> whatever is the unit you are using). Remarkably you say that such +/-
>> relationships do not exist at that "level".
>
>When did I say this, Nando? What does "competition among alleles" mean to
>you?
It means a +/- relationship among allelles. A benefit at the cost of
the other.
(encroachment, supplanting, replacement, advantage over, are some of
the words Darwin used to express that)
<snip>
>> And then being systematic, put this particular relationship in the
>> context of all theoretically possible relationships on reproductive
>> success.
>>
>> +/+ Mutual benefit
>> -/- Mutual cost
>> 0/0 No (net) benefit or cost
>> -/0 cost, without benefit
>> +/0 benefit without cost
>> +/- benefit with cost
<snip>
>Regardless of the type of relationship between individuals, these
>relationships serve to affect the differential reproductive success (i.e.,
>differential success in replicating genes) of the individuals involved. I
>have already explained this several times. How could these relationships
>NOT have anything to do with affecting differential reproductive success,
>and how could differential reproductive success not mean competition among
>alleles?
So this means you include all above relationships in Natural
Selection, or do you require there to be a +/- relationship to call
some event NS?
Nando
howard hershey
----------
In article <32u5ft8g0qggh3t73...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
<onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
That is because natural selection requires that there be a *difference* in
reproductive success. The other cases are cases where there is no
*difference* in reproductive success. How does that make natural selection
"false" rather than merely different from what you want it to be?
>
> Nando
>
Nando Ronteltap
It's beyond me why you are focused on differences, but obviously there
can be difference in reproductive success with +/+ and -/-
relationships. For example:
+70/+100 diff30
-40/-60 diff20
Only 0/0 relationships have no net difference.
It's false because of lack of systemacy (focusing on 1 type of
relationship, and ignoring 5 other types of relationships). So if you
employ systemacy as a scientific standard then natural selection is
false.
You require +/- relationships, and then you alleviate this mistake of
ignoring all other possibilities somewhat, by confusing comparison
with competition. You simply use common sense to bring in the other
possibilities, but it is not what Natural Selection actually states.
Nando
howard hershey
----------
In article <j2g5ft4l869qhacav...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
<onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I want to round of the discussion to a conclusion, so please write a
> clear answer that refute my points.
>
> You wrote a lot of stuff, obviously you are well read in the material,
> but only 2 bits you wrote were really of interest to me.
>
> *1)First is that natural selection exclusively deals with
> relationships between units where one in effect increases reproduction
> at the cost of reproduction of the other.
Natural selection involves the relationship between alternative phenotypes
as indicated by the *differential* effect of those alternative phenotypes on
the relative reproductive success of individuals exhibiting those phenotypes
in a specified environment. The greater reproductive success of one
phenotype need not be *at the cost of reproduction of the other*. The less
fit phenotype may be reproducing as fast as it can. All that matters is
that one phenotype reproduce faster than the other. It need not interact
with the other phenotype to reduce its rate of reproduction (although that
certainly is one way that there can be differential reproductive success).
There need not be direct competition where one phenotype inhibits the
reproduction of the other. There need not be any direct interaction between
the phenotypes at all. There does have to be a *difference* in their
reproductive success. The requirement that they share an environment is
that there is no variance in phenotype in a monoculture and hence no
differential reproductive success of one phenotype relative to the other.
> This relation is
> prerequisite to call some event natural selection. (The answer to the
> 250 guilders question)
>
> *2)Second is the justification for the focus on this particular
> competitive type of relationship. Only this kind of competitive
> relationship demonstrates a difference in reproductive success that is
> related to a phenotype.
Notice that the "competition" is *for greater reproductive success*, not
*against the other phenotype*. One can have greater reproductive success
without inhibiting or otherwise disturbing the reproduction of the other
phenotype. That is a different kind of meaning for 'competition' than the
one you envision. But I assure you that Darwin himself explicitly pointed
out that he meant 'competition' in this broader sense rather than in the
narrow direct head-to-head competition (nature red in claw and tooth) that
you are thinking of.
>
> Obviously this is untrue.
I beg to differ. It is neither untrue nor obvious that it is untrue.
> You don't demonstrate a difference in
> reproductive success,
Natural selection *requires* a significant difference in reproductive
success. And cases where there are significant differences in reproductive
success certainly have been demonstrated, by Darwin, by myself, by you even.
Are you saying that one cannot demonstrate a "difference in reproductive
success"? One certainly can demonstrate a "difference in reproductive
success" in a controlled and experimental fashion. Take a culture of
ampicillin-resistant bacteria and a culture of ampicillin-sensitive bacteria
and put them together on a plate with ampicillin. Then look a day later at
which phenotype fills the plate. Is that not a "demonstration of a
difference in reproductive success"?
> you demonstrate a relation of encroachment,
No. The above example does not involve one phenotype encroaching upon the
other and preventing its reproduction.
> a
> benefit with cost relation. You confuse a comparison with competition,
I am not confused. You are. You are thinking of competition *against each
other* as the only kind of competition that there can be.
> so in this way you don't actually know the relation between the units
> in natural selection. This is mainly evidenced to me by that you only
> mentioned the relation was a cost-benefit relation after 6 lenghty
> posts or so, and that you were hard put to call the malaria-example a
> cost-benefit relation.
The above is simply not obvious. It is obscure.
> As before, Natural Selection is just one of
> many types of relations between units.
Yes. Of course. Natural selection is not "everything and the kitchen sink"
idea that can nebulously be applied to whatever you don't like. It is a
very precise idea.
>
> +/- benefit with cost (natural selection: the only one you deal with)
> +/+ mutual benefit
> -/- mutual cost
> 0/0 no (net) benefit or cost
> -/0 cost, without benefit
> +/0 benefit without cost
>
> So to speak, Natural Selection describes 1/6 about the relations
> between units on reproduction. So you ignore 5 types of relationships
> with Natural Selection, which makes Natural Selection proposterous
> non-science.
Natural selection is not involved unless there is a significant difference
in the reproductive success of the alternative phenotypes in a specified
environment. No difference in reproductive success = no natural selection.
>
> What is most damaging of all is that it doesn't even mention the most
> important thing about any reproductive unit in nature. Which is the
> chance a reproductive unit has at any given time, to a future event of
> reproduction.
It measures reproductive success over a lifetime. At some point the
reproductive potential of any organism is zero. At some point it is
maximal. And, since natural selection is a population measure, its
application to any individual is necessarily probabilistic.
>
> Seeing that you never write anything that comes even close to dealing
> with the problems I have clearly explained to have with Natural
> Selection, I fear we just must continue to disagree.
No. I have dealt explicitly with the "problems" you have posed and answered
them as accurately as I can. You simply do not like the answers, because
you want natural selection to be what it isn't.
>
> 1)
>>> Do you exclusively deal with physical relationships where one
>>> increases reproduction at the cost of reproduction of the other?
>>
>>Because natural selection requires that there be differential reproduction,
>>only cases where there is a significant difference in reproductive success
>>can be attributed to natural selection. Changes in allele frequency in a
>>population that are not due to natural selection are due to chance. So the
>>answer is yes.
Actually, the answer should be 'yes' to the question of whether natural
selection requires *differential reproductive success* and 'no' to the
requirement that it be *at the cost (except indirectly) of reproduction of
the other*. The result will always be an increase in the frequency of the
fitter phenotype, regardless of whether the competition is direct
head-to-head competition or merely competition to survive in a hostile
environment (as in the bacterial example above). Either type of significant
differential reproductive success causally related to phenotype is called
natural selection.
>
> 2)
>>It is perfectly systematic to include in natural selection only those cases
>>where the difference in reproductive success is causally related to the
>>difference in alternative phenotypes and to *not* include cases where there
>>is no significant difference related to the phenotype. Any differences in
>>these other cases may be due to environmental differences or pure chance,
>>but are not natural selection, which requires that the phenotypic difference
>>cause a significant effect.
Yes. There has to be a difference in reproductive success in order for the
change in allele (phenotype) frequency that results 'natural selection'.
There can be changes in allele frequency that are *not* the result of
'natural selection' but are due to chance. There are clear ways of
distinguishing between the two. The idea of a static relationship between
alternative phenotypes is an illusion. There will always be change. The
only question is if the change is due to chance alone or causally related to
phenotype.
>
> Nando
>
Nando Ronteltap
It is not possible to conclude this argument, if you make unclear
and/or opposite statements, about the 250 guilder question.
Do you, or do you not require there to be a relationship where one
increases reproduction at cost of reproduction of the other, to call
some event natural selection?
So far I have.
No:
"The greater reproductive success of one phenotype need not be *at the
cost of reproduction of the other*."
------
Yes:
Do you exclusively deal with physical relationships where one
increases reproduction at the cost of reproduction of the other?
"Because natural selection requires that there be differential
reproduction, only cases where there is a significant difference in
reproductive success can be attributed to natural selection. Changes
in allele frequency in a population that are not due to natural
selection are due to chance. So the answer is yes."
------
And then a restatement of that same answer as a,
No/Yes sort of:
"Actually, the answer should be 'yes' to the question of whether
natural selection requires *differential reproductive success* and
'no' to the requirement that it be *at the cost (except indirectly) of
reproduction of the other*. "
The "except indirectly" (put between damn brackets!) makes it a sort
of yes/no.
----
Regrettably you failed to answer an earlier post of mine on 4/30/2001
where I specifically asked for clarity on this issue, when you clearly
said yes. (in the previous thread)
----
That's commendable clarity. But since I'm insecure I will ask the same
question to you again, and see if I get the same clear answer. (I have
been in this discussion for years without clear answers so I think
it's legitimate to ask it again)
Do you exclusively deal with physical relationships where one
increases reproduction at the cost of reproduction of the other?
-----
You should give clarity by answering the question above. Both in case
of yes and no I would reject natural selection, but for different
reasons.
<snip>
>> Seeing that you never write anything that comes even close to dealing
>> with the problems I have clearly explained to have with Natural
>> Selection, I fear we just must continue to disagree.
>
>No. I have dealt explicitly with the "problems" you have posed and answered
>them as accurately as I can. You simply do not like the answers, because
>you want natural selection to be what it isn't.
Not so. As above there are 2 possibilities for what Natural Selection
is, left to you, both I would accept (and then refute). You really
haven't clearly stated to me which one it should be.
Nando
Justin Cobb
> "Justin Cobb" <jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>I know there to be +/+
> >> and -/- relationships etc. at the "level" of the gene/allelle (or
> >> whatever is the unit you are using). Remarkably you say that such +/-
> >> relationships do not exist at that "level".
> >
> >When did I say this, Nando? What does "competition among alleles" mean
to
> >you?
>
> It means a +/- relationship among allelles. A benefit at the cost of
> the other.
Right. How, then, could you possibly claim that I "say that such
relationships do not exist at that 'level'" when what you have stated
immediately above sums up what I have been arguing the whole time?
There has to be competition among alleles to call an event natural
selection, meaning that if variance appears in a population that only the
alleles which adapt the organism to its environment so that it can gain in
terms of reproductive success will be be replicated in the gene pool and
survive (i.e., they will be "selected for"). Alleles which hinder
reproductive success in that environment will not be replicated in the gene
pool (i.e., they will be "selected against"). Since all of the
relationships have an affect on differential reproductive success, they will
all be subject to natural selection.
Justin Cobb
>
> Nando
>
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
whats strange...among the many strange things about the rabid
antisemite nando...is his insistence evolution is false because it
'preaches racism'. he admits xtianity has done the same, but insists
thats ok...
Boikat
Not exactly. He blatantly ignores it until
someone rubs his nose in it, then after admitting
it's as guilty, if not more so, moves back to
attempting to bash evolution again. The thread
title says it all.
Boikat
wf...@ptd.net
>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>
>> >
>> whats strange...among the many strange things about the rabid
>> antisemite nando...is his insistence evolution is false because it
>> 'preaches racism'. he admits xtianity has done the same, but insists
>> thats ok...
>
>Not exactly. He blatantly ignores it until
>someone rubs his nose in it, then after admitting
>it's as guilty, if not more so, moves back to
>attempting to bash evolution again. The thread
>title says it all.
>
>Boikat
>
yeah thats true. an extreme case of cognitive dissonance...
Nando Ronteltap
>> It means a +/- relationship among allelles. A benefit at the cost of
>> the other.
>
>Right. How, then, could you possibly claim that I "say that such
>relationships do not exist at that 'level'" when what you have stated
>immediately above sums up what I have been arguing the whole time?
Oops, yes. That you should read you deny the existence of all except
+/- relationships on gene/allelle level.
+/+ Mutual benefit
-/- Mutual cost
0/0 No (net) benefit or cost
-/0 cost, without benefit
+/0 benefit without cost
+/- benefit with cost
>> So this means you include all above relationships in Natural
>> Selection, or do you require there to be a +/- relationship to call
>> some event NS?
>
>There has to be competition among alleles to call an event natural
>selection, meaning that if variance appears in a population that only the
>alleles which adapt the organism to its environment so that it can gain in
>terms of reproductive success will be be replicated in the gene pool and
>survive (i.e., they will be "selected for"). Alleles which hinder
>reproductive success in that environment will not be replicated in the gene
>pool (i.e., they will be "selected against"). Since all of the
>relationships have an affect on differential reproductive success, they will
>all be subject to natural selection.
A simple yes or no would suffice....... whatever else this means it
means that you require there to be a +/- relationship on gene/allelle
level, and neglect all other types of relationships. Therefore Natural
Selection is false by standard of systemacy. It unsystematically
focuses on 1 out of 6 possible relations on reproduction between
units.
Nando
Justin Cobb
> >> So this means you include all above relationships in Natural
> >> Selection, or do you require there to be a +/- relationship to call
> >> some event NS?
> >
> >There has to be competition among alleles to call an event natural
> >selection, meaning that if variance appears in a population that only the
> >alleles which adapt the organism to its environment so that it can gain
in
> >terms of reproductive success will be be replicated in the gene pool and
> >survive (i.e., they will be "selected for"). Alleles which hinder
> >reproductive success in that environment will not be replicated in the
gene
> >pool (i.e., they will be "selected against"). Since all of the
> >relationships have an affect on differential reproductive success, they
will
> >all be subject to natural selection.
>
> A simple yes or no would suffice....... whatever else this means it
> means that you require there to be a +/- relationship on gene/allelle
> level, and neglect all other types of relationships. Therefore Natural
> Selection is false by standard of systemacy. It unsystematically
> focuses on 1 out of 6 possible relations on reproduction between
> units.
Apparently you don't remember all those posts of mine explaining how
relationships at the level of the organism (e.g., altruism, pathogen-host
interactions, etc.) translate to competition at the gene level. (I have
explained this in rather great detail.) Take another look at them when you
get a spare moment.
Justin Cobb
>
> Nando
>
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando:
>> A simple yes or no would suffice....... whatever else this means it
>> means that you require there to be a +/- relationship on gene/allelle
>> level, and neglect all other types of relationships. Therefore Natural
>> Selection is false by standard of systemacy. It unsystematically
>> focuses on 1 out of 6 possible relations on reproduction between
>> units.
>
>Apparently you don't remember all those posts of mine explaining how
>relationships at the level of the organism (e.g., altruism, pathogen-host
>interactions, etc.) translate to competition at the gene level. (I have
>explained this in rather great detail.) Take another look at them when you
>get a spare moment.
Your critical words here are, at the level of the organism. You don't
believe there are +/+, -/-, etc. relationships at the level of the
gene, or the allelle, which is AFAIK simply untrue. So your Natural
Selection is false not for lack of systemacy, for ignoring what you
know is there, but because of actually actively denying that is there
at all. How strange.
If it were true that genes are only involved in these +/-
relationships and not the other types of relationships, then that
would be excellent evidence for a mysterious intelligent guiding
force. Like having a fair dice but only 1 turns up all the time. I
think it would be more demonstrative of devilish intelligence then
divine intelligence, since of the 6 possible relationships the divine
one would be the +/+ relationship I guess, and not the +/-
relationship. :-/
Nando
Justin Cobb
> "Justin Cobb" <jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >Nando:
>
> >> A simple yes or no would suffice....... whatever else this means it
> >> means that you require there to be a +/- relationship on gene/allelle
> >> level, and neglect all other types of relationships. Therefore Natural
> >> Selection is false by standard of systemacy. It unsystematically
> >> focuses on 1 out of 6 possible relations on reproduction between
> >> units.
> >
> >Apparently you don't remember all those posts of mine explaining how
> >relationships at the level of the organism (e.g., altruism, pathogen-host
> >interactions, etc.) translate to competition at the gene level. (I have
> >explained this in rather great detail.) Take another look at them when
you
> >get a spare moment.
>
> Your critical words here are, at the level of the organism. You don't
> believe there are +/+, -/-, etc. relationships at the level of the
> gene, or the allelle, which is AFAIK simply untrue. So your Natural
> Selection is false not for lack of systemacy, for ignoring what you
> know is there, but because of actually actively denying that is there
> at all. How strange.
How could there possibly be any other "relationship" between genes other
than competition? What do the words "differential reproductive success"
mean to you?
>
> If it were true that genes are only involved in these +/-
> relationships and not the other types of relationships, then that
> would be excellent evidence for a mysterious intelligent guiding
> force. Like having a fair dice but only 1 turns up all the time. I
> think it would be more demonstrative of devilish intelligence then
> divine intelligence, since of the 6 possible relationships the divine
> one would be the +/+ relationship I guess, and not the +/-
> relationship. :-/
Non sequitur.
Inferring that any intelligent intervention is involved (much less required)
would require that we have knowledge of the intelligent entity involved.
There is no evidence of such, nor can we obtain evidence, given that you are
referring to a supernatural entity. Thus, without evidence of intelligent
intervention, intelligent intervention cannot be used in a scientific
theory. Furthermore, natural selection seems to be doing a great job
without intervention by an intelligent entity.
Justin Cobb
>
> Nando
>
Nando Ronteltap
>> Your critical words here are, at the level of the organism. You don't
>> believe there are +/+, -/-, etc. relationships at the level of the
>> gene, or the allelle, which is AFAIK simply untrue. So your Natural
>> Selection is false not for lack of systemacy, for ignoring what you
>> know is there, but because of actually actively denying that is there
>> at all. How strange.
>
>How could there possibly be any other "relationship" between genes other
>than competition? What do the words "differential reproductive success"
>mean to you?
I accept your interpretation of differential reproductive success as
meaning +/- relationships among genes. I just think that differential
reproductive success doesn't correctly describe nature.
>> If it were true that genes are only involved in these +/-
>> relationships and not the other types of relationships, then that
>> would be excellent evidence for a mysterious intelligent guiding
>> force. Like having a fair dice but only 1 turns up all the time. I
>> think it would be more demonstrative of devilish intelligence then
>> divine intelligence, since of the 6 possible relationships the divine
>> one would be the +/+ relationship I guess, and not the +/-
>> relationship. :-/
>
>Non sequitur.
>
>Inferring that any intelligent intervention is involved (much less required)
>would require that we have knowledge of the intelligent entity involved.
>There is no evidence of such, nor can we obtain evidence, given that you are
>referring to a supernatural entity. Thus, without evidence of intelligent
>intervention, intelligent intervention cannot be used in a scientific
>theory. Furthermore, natural selection seems to be doing a great job
>without intervention by an intelligent entity.
What I'm saying was, is that Natural Selection itself seems to be
descriptive of an intelligence that chooses there to be only 1 type of
relationship, out of a possible 6 types of relationships.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
trashed in argument. How sad, but how curiously funny at the same
time.
BWAHAHAHAHA
sorry.
Nando
Boikat
>
> How sad.
Actually, you are pathetic.
> A backwater-thread of grumbling posters I have previously
> trashed in argument.
In your most deluded dreams cupcake.
> How sad, but how curiously funny at the same
> time.
You must giggle at yourself a lot too, then.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA
>
Your delusions are what's really funny. I noticed
that you chose not to address the point of your
blatant hypocrisy, however.
> sorry.
We know you're a sorry sack of deluded dog shit.
What's your excuse?
Boikat
Nando Ronteltap
>In article <9c6vet4ni34hkl1uu...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
>> BTW you better shut your mouth about me desperately wanting natural
>> selection to mean genocide as you write in some other post.
>
>Why? It certainly seems to be true.
I could more legitimately say the same of you and Darwin, since you
insist on a +/- relationship, which better accords with genocide, in
stead of including all possible relations between units, like +/+ and
-/- in natural selection.
In my version of natural selection *no* relationships between units
are even mentioned, so it principally has nothing whatsoever to do
with genocide (or altruism for that matter).
>> Darwin started out with writing.... the races encroach on each other
>> untill some finally become *extinct*, as his *main* proposition of
>> natural selection among human beings, and then later in the book he
>> wrote... *extinction* follows *chiefly* by competition of tribe with
>> tribe and race with race....blablabla... war, slaughter, cannabalism
>> and absorption.
>
>Which parts are direct quotes? And which is your fetid imagination?
The book didn't say ".....blablablabla....", and slavery should be
added to the list.
>> The most straightforward way to read the book is to take the
>> proposition at the start, and then go to where he says how this main
>> proposition *chiefly* occurs. This is what you would do with any other
>> book in taking out the things to remember most.
>
>I have repeatedly said that this is a silly way to judge a book.
Well I disagree. In remembering you have to distinguish between what
is important, and what is not-important, and this is a good way to do
that. I would not put anyone through the torture of actually reading
Darwin's Descent of Man whole, with an eye to figuring out the
fundamentals of his theory of natural selection applied to man. Read
as a non-science book that gives some sketchy impressions about
mankind, it is readable.
>> Don't see this as me trashing Darwin for associating natural selection
>> with something like cannabalism. See this as me saying that I think
>> you are a better scientist then Darwin, and you wouldn't write stuff
>> like that.
>
>Nor would I try to refute Darwin by using the example that Fleeming Jenkins
>used. Hint: It has to do with the superiority of whites relative to blacks.
Depending on how you employ the standard of neutrality in science, you
could reject Darwin's Darwinism simply by pointing out him using such
words as higher, lower, better, worse, superior and inferior, for lack
of neutrality in language. This is unrelated to my other refutations
of Darwinism, on the standards of systemacy and natural relations for
descriptive theories. Let Darwinists invent their own precisely
defined language in stead of using vague colloquial normative
terminology wich has innumerable other meanings.
Nando
howard hershey
>
> "howard hershey" <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> >In article <9c6vet4ni34hkl1uu...@4ax.com>, Nando Ronteltap
>
> >> BTW you better shut your mouth about me desperately wanting natural
> >> selection to mean genocide as you write in some other post.
> >
> >Why? It certainly seems to be true.
>
> I could more legitimately say the same of you and Darwin, since you
> insist on a +/- relationship, which better accords with genocide,
Genocide certainly can have genetic consequences in terms of allele
frequency, but it need not do so (genocide can be unrelated to genetic
difference, as in the slaughter of people for their religious beliefs -
say some of the nastier Catholic/Protestant genocides). But genocide is
also certainly not the only thing that can have genetic consequences.
Natural selection, however, is a *biological* term that requires more
than an effect on gene frequencies, it requires that the change be
*causally* related to genetic differences and not a matter of chance or
inadvertant linkage unrelated to the trait used as the justification for
the genocide.
> in
> stead of including all possible relations between units, like +/+ and
> -/- in natural selection.
That simply makes your version of natural selection meaningless. How
can you calculate differential reproductive success when there is no
difference in reproductive success? Calling every possible
inter-relationship "natural selection" renders the term meaningless. If
+/-, +/+, -/-, and 0/0 relationships are all "natural selection", what
isn't "natural selection"?
>
> In my version of natural selection *no* relationships between units
> are even mentioned, so it principally has nothing whatsoever to do
> with genocide (or altruism for that matter).
I am completely unclear as to what *your* private definition (as opposed
to the public definition that I gave) of "natural selection" is, how it
could be useful, and how you could calculate it. It seemed completely
worthless.
>
> >> Darwin started out with writing.... the races encroach on each other
> >> untill some finally become *extinct*, as his *main* proposition of
> >> natural selection among human beings, and then later in the book he
> >> wrote... *extinction* follows *chiefly* by competition of tribe with
> >> tribe and race with race....blablabla... war, slaughter, cannabalism
> >> and absorption.
> >
> >Which parts are direct quotes? And which is your fetid imagination?
>
> The book didn't say ".....blablablabla....", and slavery should be
> added to the list.
If those are direct quotes, the usual way of indicating that is to use
the following symbols: "".
>
> >> The most straightforward way to read the book is to take the
> >> proposition at the start, and then go to where he says how this main
> >> proposition *chiefly* occurs. This is what you would do with any other
> >> book in taking out the things to remember most.
> >
> >I have repeatedly said that this is a silly way to judge a book.
>
> Well I disagree. In remembering you have to distinguish between what
> is important, and what is not-important, and this is a good way to do
> that.
Introductions are a way of getting readers up to speed so they can
understand your later points. If you want to understand what the writer
concluded, you read the conclusion, not the introduction.
> I would not put anyone through the torture of actually reading
> Darwin's Descent of Man whole, with an eye to figuring out the
> fundamentals of his theory of natural selection applied to man.
The way to understand his theory of natural selection is to read the
book where he describes it, not the book where he applies it to man
(especially given the limited knowledge of human evolution at the
time). The way to understand how "natural selection" is currently used
and calculated is to read modern texts. Darwin is not some perfect
saint. Scientists do not worship saints. Darwin was prescient and his
theory was a great advance in understanding how nature works. But his
genetics was flawed. He also was constrained by the same sorts of
world-views as any English gentleman of his time, which certainly means
that, from our perspective, he might not be considered racially
enlightened. The same could be said of Abraham Lincoln. But by the
perspective of *his* time, he certainly was racially enlightened. And
Wallace was off the scale (in being racially enlightened) for his time
and place. Huxley was no slouch either. To call *Darwin* a racist is
to engage in Stalinist re-writing of history (Whiggish history) to make
it fit your biases.
> Read
> as a non-science book that gives some sketchy impressions about
> mankind, it is readable.
>
> >> Don't see this as me trashing Darwin for associating natural selection
> >> with something like cannabalism. See this as me saying that I think
> >> you are a better scientist then Darwin, and you wouldn't write stuff
> >> like that.
> >
> >Nor would I try to refute Darwin by using the example that Fleeming Jenkins
> >used. Hint: It has to do with the superiority of whites relative to blacks.
>
> Depending on how you employ the standard of neutrality in science, you
> could reject Darwin's Darwinism simply by pointing out him using such
> words as higher, lower, better, worse, superior and inferior, for lack
> of neutrality in language.
So are you claiming that "higher, lower, better, worse, superior and
inferior" measured on a particular scale (reproductive success, height,
weight, etc.) do not exist in nature? How post-modernist of you.
> This is unrelated to my other refutations
> of Darwinism, on the standards of systemacy and natural relations for
> descriptive theories.
The above is gibberish that is unrelated to reality or science of any
sort.
> Let Darwinists invent their own precisely
> defined language instead of using vague colloquial normative
> terminology wich has innumerable other meanings.
That is exactly what science has done with natural selection. You seem
to want to use natural selection as a "vague colloquial normative
terminology which has innumerable other meanings".
>
> Nando
Justin Cobb
> "Justin Cobb" <jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> Your critical words here are, at the level of the organism. You don't
> >> believe there are +/+, -/-, etc. relationships at the level of the
> >> gene, or the allelle, which is AFAIK simply untrue. So your Natural
> >> Selection is false not for lack of systemacy, for ignoring what you
> >> know is there, but because of actually actively denying that is there
> >> at all. How strange.
> >
> >How could there possibly be any other "relationship" between genes other
> >than competition? What do the words "differential reproductive success"
> >mean to you?
>
> I accept your interpretation of differential reproductive success as
> meaning +/- relationships among genes. I just think that differential
> reproductive success doesn't correctly describe nature.
The importance of differential reproductive success lies in the fact that
alleles should be favored that help their *own* carriers survive and
reproduce (the "selfish gene" concept)--'cooperative' genes should die out.
What this means in terms of 'relationships' between genes is that a +/+
would be selected against because it would help other genes' carriers to
survive and reproduce. Due to environmental limitations--limitations on
food, habitat, etc.--such a relationship would inevitably lead to
competition on the level of organisms, which, in turn, would translate to
competition on the gene level.
If two genes were to be involved in a -/- relationship, both would be very
quickly selected against because both are compromising their ability to--in
loose terms--"make" the organism reproduce. Neither relationship would lead
to an evolutionarily-stable strategy so there is no reason to believe that
either relationship would be found in nature.
Justin Cobb
Boikat
Justin Cobb wrote:
>
> "Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:kli7ftcuenq09m75k...@4ax.com...
> > "Justin Cobb" <jac...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> > >"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >> Your critical words here are, at the level of the organism. You don't
> > >> believe there are +/+, -/-, etc. relationships at the level of the
> > >> gene, or the allelle, which is AFAIK simply untrue. So your Natural
> > >> Selection is false not for lack of systemacy, for ignoring what you
> > >> know is there, but because of actually actively denying that is there
> > >> at all. How strange.
> > >
> > >How could there possibly be any other "relationship" between genes other
> > >than competition? What do the words "differential reproductive success"
> > >mean to you?
> >
> > I accept your interpretation of differential reproductive success as
> > meaning +/- relationships among genes. I just think that differential
> > reproductive success doesn't correctly describe nature.
Then how would you describe it and what would you
call it? (Try to avoid inclusion of any or your
personal fantasies about the phenomena)
[snip]
Boikat
Nando Ronteltap
>> > I accept your interpretation of differential reproductive success as
>> > meaning +/- relationships among genes. I just think that differential
>> > reproductive success doesn't correctly describe nature.
>
>Then how would you describe it and what would you
>call it? (Try to avoid inclusion of any or your
>personal fantasies about the phenomena)
I would just talk about the reproductive chance of units as a
basisdescription. Then would note all 6 different relations among
units.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
As you know, my NS just describes reproductive units in terms of their
reproductive chance. It doesn't neccessarily deal with any relations
among units. As I also have explained to you +/+ still can mean
difference in reproductuve success +60/+80=diff20. Not that I see any
strict reason to require difference, but it can be there in +/+
relationships nevertheless.
>> In my version of natural selection *no* relationships between units
>> are even mentioned, so it principally has nothing whatsoever to do
>> with genocide (or altruism for that matter).
>
>I am completely unclear as to what *your* private definition (as opposed
>to the public definition that I gave) of "natural selection" is, how it
>could be useful, and how you could calculate it. It seemed completely
>worthless.
Well ok. But since I don't require any relationship among units for my
NS, I am also not prejudiced towards any of the 6 possible
relationships.
>> >> Darwin started out with writing.... the races encroach on each other
>> >> untill some finally become *extinct*, as his *main* proposition of
>> >> natural selection among human beings, and then later in the book he
>> >> wrote... *extinction* follows *chiefly* by competition of tribe with
>> >> tribe and race with race....blablabla... war, slaughter, cannabalism
>> >> and absorption.
>> >
>> >Which parts are direct quotes? And which is your fetid imagination?
>>
>> The book didn't say ".....blablablabla....", and slavery should be
>> added to the list.
>
>If those are direct quotes, the usual way of indicating that is to use
>the following symbols: "".
But I mean for you to be uncertain if it really is Darwin, so you will
look it up yourself, in stead of bothering me with it.
>> >> The most straightforward way to read the book is to take the
>> >> proposition at the start, and then go to where he says how this main
>> >> proposition *chiefly* occurs. This is what you would do with any other
>> >> book in taking out the things to remember most.
>> >
>> >I have repeatedly said that this is a silly way to judge a book.
>>
>> Well I disagree. In remembering you have to distinguish between what
>> is important, and what is not-important, and this is a good way to do
>> that.
>
>Introductions are a way of getting readers up to speed so they can
>understand your later points. If you want to understand what the writer
>concluded, you read the conclusion, not the introduction.
Well that's true, but Darwin employs his famous narrative in the
conclusion. Anway, like I said, the proposition and how it chiefly
occurs is the straghtforward way to look at it. The conclusion is a
given. His proposition was much unpallatable but correct, according to
Darwin.
>> I would not put anyone through the torture of actually reading
>> Darwin's Descent of Man whole, with an eye to figuring out the
>> fundamentals of his theory of natural selection applied to man.
>
>The way to understand his theory of natural selection is to read the
>book where he describes it, not the book where he applies it to man
>(especially given the limited knowledge of human evolution at the
>time). The way to understand how "natural selection" is currently used
>and calculated is to read modern texts. Darwin is not some perfect
>saint. Scientists do not worship saints. Darwin was prescient and his
>theory was a great advance in understanding how nature works. But his
>genetics was flawed. He also was constrained by the same sorts of
>world-views as any English gentleman of his time, which certainly means
>that, from our perspective, he might not be considered racially
>enlightened. The same could be said of Abraham Lincoln. But by the
>perspective of *his* time, he certainly was racially enlightened. And
>Wallace was off the scale (in being racially enlightened) for his time
>and place. Huxley was no slouch either. To call *Darwin* a racist is
>to engage in Stalinist re-writing of history (Whiggish history) to make
>it fit your biases.
Really, Darwin could have written in another way. That not trusting
Indians thing for instance, is totally out of line. It's not above
bartalk in many places. Anway that Darwinists fail to criticize Darwin
frankly scares me.
>> Depending on how you employ the standard of neutrality in science, you
>> could reject Darwin's Darwinism simply by pointing out him using such
>> words as higher, lower, better, worse, superior and inferior, for lack
>> of neutrality in language.
>
>So are you claiming that "higher, lower, better, worse, superior and
>inferior" measured on a particular scale (reproductive success, height,
>weight, etc.) do not exist in nature? How post-modernist of you.
That language can be avoided and it demonstrably leads to error with
the Darwinists themselves.
>> This is unrelated to my other refutations
>> of Darwinism, on the standards of systemacy and natural relations for
>> descriptive theories.
>
>The above is gibberish that is unrelated to reality or science of any
>sort.
>
>> Let Darwinists invent their own precisely
>> defined language instead of using vague colloquial normative
>> terminology wich has innumerable other meanings.
>
>That is exactly what science has done with natural selection. You seem
>to want to use natural selection as a "vague colloquial normative
>terminology which has innumerable other meanings".
Regrettably, no. Darwinists fail to understand that people have to use
words such as good and selfish in their daily lives all the time.
http://www.boxmind.com/lectures/survivalofthefittest/frame1_56k.asp
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
answer the below question yes or no. (no political manouvering, or
displaying of copious amounts of knowledge neccessary)
Q: Do you, or do you not require there to be a relationship where one
increases reproduction at cost of reproduction of the other, to call
some event, or sequence of events, natural selection?
A:
So far I have:
--------
No:
"The greater reproductive success of one phenotype need not be *at the
cost of reproduction of the other*."
------
Yes:
Do you exclusively deal with physical relationships where one
increases reproduction at the cost of reproduction of the other?
"Because natural selection requires that there be differential
reproduction, only cases where there is a significant difference in
reproductive success can be attributed to natural selection. Changes
in allele frequency in a population that are not due to natural
selection are due to chance. So the answer is yes."
------
And then a restatement of that same answer as a,
No/Yes sort of:
"Actually, the answer should be 'yes' to the question of whether
natural selection requires *differential reproductive success* and
'no' to the requirement that it be *at the cost (except indirectly) of
reproduction of the other*. "
The "except indirectly" makes it a sort of yes/no.
----
I'm not sure, but I think this all amounts to a yes. I don't care
about direct or indirect, just if cost/benefit is required or not to
call some event natural selection.
Nando
Justin Cobb
<snip>
If we were talking about probabilities ("reproductive chance"), though, then
we would be discussing genetic drift. Natural selection is not based on
chance. Natural selection is based on adaptation to environmental
constraints (predation, pathogenesis, food and habitat availability and
quality, weather, etc.).
Justin Cobb
>
> Nando
>
Boikat
That's a bit of a mouth full, and doesn't really
say much. Only you could pull that off. Let's try
again: What would you call it, and how would you
describe how the "chance" of reproduction is
mediated by environmental factors. or do you
ignore the environment in you "description", along
with variations within the species?
Boikat
>
> Nando