Re: Nando Explains Natural Selection to You!

hersheyh@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Syamsu:

> > All the possible scenario's, some enumerated previously in the thread,
> > are based on the logic that all organisms die, through reproduction the
> > forms of organisms are preserved, hence the event of reproduction, to
> > reproduce or not to reproduce, shapes the population of organisms.
>
> Well, duh. But it is *differential reproduction of variant phenotypes*
> that causes this.

That's not true, the above logic is basic to differential reproduction
of variants, not the other way round, drs is not basic to the above
logic.

<snip>

> > Sure you can help it the way terms are defined, by rejecting the
> > teleological and biased definitions, and accepting the neutral and
> > generally applicable definitions.
>
> I am. You aren't.

Meaningless assertion.

> > I suggest that evolution comes down to mutation / recombination, and
> > what we see after that are changes in populationsize of that mutation.
> > It is very clear this way that natural selection is basicly about
> > changes in populationsize.
>
> Not if there is no *selection* between variants.

It is your mistake to define selection as being between variants,
emphasis on the word is no argument for the definition being correct.
You can see that the original formulation of Darwin depends on
Malthusian low-resource scenario's, in direct reference to Malthus, in
which one variant replaces another. But that logic is lacking even to
explain adaptive evolution, because a variant need not replace another
variant, but may diverge away from the other variant. That oppositional
formulation is deceptive to misconstrue competition, where in actuality
a variation may be a reason for organisms *not* to compete, since by
that variation they may use different resources for reproduction, and
competition between exactly the same is most intense.

<snip>

> Population size changes in the absence of variation or differential
> effects on phenotypic variation is NOT natural selection. It is a
> measure of the *carrying capacity* of the environment to which the
> organism is adapted.

But it is ridiculous. I tell you that the trees blackened in some area,
and the black moth expanded in to them, the black color facillitating
reproduction. Now you don't know whether or not this is natural
selection, because I haven't told you if there be pink, orange, brown,
or white moths in the population, for this expansion to be relative to.
It's irrellevant, the pink, orange, brown and white. Nature doesn't
operate by meaningless comparisons, Darwinists do.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mendel refutes evolution
    ... Meiotic drive is just selection. ... I deny the validity of a term like "species selection". ... because it kills of organisms who ... reproduction that has nothing to do with genetic or phenotypic ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Digital Genetics and Evolution Theory
    ... large complex organisms from simply wearing out. ... primarily by selection on repair and maintenance mechanisms. ... short-term reproduction at the expense of repair and ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Nando Explains Natural Selection to You!
    ... >>> are based on the logic that all organisms die, through reproduction the ... death of organisms is a requirement for evolution and natural selection ... Which requires more than one variant. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3
    ... >>> variant compared to is actually extinct already. ... there's no choosing in natural selection. ... The blackwingcolor facillitated reproduction, the form is ... Organisms do not optimize, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The ultimate cause of aging
    ... survival and reproduction indefinitely. ... natural selection acts more strongly on variations ... The basic problem with it, however, is that there is evidence of senescence effector and suppressor genes that control the rate of aging in some organisms. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading