FANDOM


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/116fe2d3ca334b90#

The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)

rephrase: The natural means of competitive selection (Natural Selection) is a process in which the incremental proliferation of interactors cause the incremental perpetuation of the replicators.

rephrase: The natural means of competitive proliferation(ns) results in incremental proliferation of interactors causing the perpetuation of the replicators.

rephrase: As the proliferators compete against others, those winning the process of proliferation, perpetuate their line of proliferators

rephrase: Those that competitively proliferate , perpetuate their descendents in incremental(differential) stages, leading eventually to the formation of new species that can't -interbreed.

rephrase: Those that competitively proliferate , perpetuate their descendents.

finally: Those that proliferate , perpetuate their descendents.

Perpetuate and proliferate in this case are synonyms that refer to the same fact, saying the same twice and thus a rhetorical tautology. In other instances dissimilar terms are used that refer to the same fact. By saying the same thing twice the authors are able to insert the non-sequitur conclusion, namely that new species who can't interbreed arose in small *differential*(JohnTyndall) or *incremental* steps via this process of Patrick Matthew's (PatrickMatthew) *natural means of competitive selection,proliferation, preservation, perpetuation* etc. , which Darwin contracted to natural selection , in order to avoid giving credit to Matthew. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29 I wrote .... truth of the proposition cannot be disputed by defining a dissimilar or synonymous term in terms of another .....

In Citizendium's ns article each paragraph is an exercise in saying the same thing twice as discussed elsewhere.

Notes by Ray Martinez Edit

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/116fe2d3ca334b90#

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2012-01/msg04122.html

Before, you wrote(Ray quoting Burkhard):

"In addition to these examples, one way you can see this quite easily is that even within the evolutionary paradigm, broadly understood, there was and is intensive debate on the role and extend of NS, with proponents of the strict neutral theory e.g. downplaying it to a considerable degree. (see e.g. Motoo Kimura's work)."

Ray Martinez writes in reply to Burkhard: Gould says (in Gould 2002) that he spoke with Kimura face-to-face and he said his neutral theory was not offered as competing with Darwinian NS. One hardly needs to remind of this since "neutral" is not a positive claim, unlike NS. The latter claims to be a "creative" force (positive claim), not the former. With this said Hull and many others have made "whatever happens, happens" statements ALL THE TIME. Stephan's(Usenet backspace) observation (answer and critique) is accurate.

Therefore natural selection is not, in any way, falsifiable. Gould (2002) supports my case unwittingly. He **repeatedly** refers to and describes natural selection to be "logic." Claims **based** on logic are NOT falsifiable. I think Stephan (upthread) quoted Darwin as saying the truth of the propositions/observations guarantees the truth of the conclusion(s). Gould is therefore correct: this is a claim of logic. Be advised: I am NOT saying that Gould says NS not falsifiable. I am saying he and Darwin have established NS to be a claim of logic which, according to the precepts of Empiricism, is not subject to falsification. Although the fact insulates and exempts NS from a charge of not being falsifiable, it does falsify the claim that NS is falsifiable.


Burkhard replies to Ray: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a67673b2bbc3baac?


Notes Edit

On Jan 12, 11:25 pm, Burkhard wrote: > > > >http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Milton_Wain_collection_of_pre_Darwin... > > > > showed that the authors all had the same idea basically.  Darwin > > > > summarized their positions without giving credit. > > > > Really only a problem for Ray, who keeps claiming that no naturalist > > > before Darwin thought about species transmutation. The rest of us > > > doesn't care a bit. > > > Never said any such thing. > > > Ray > > You surprise me!  It's how I interpreted post like this:https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4f8bc2217eca80a6?hl=en > > "Your initial attempt to support via two quotes from Wilkins 2009 was > pathetic. You did NOT support your claim. Your claim was that science > before 1859 had always accepted mutability of species. As a student in > the history of science I can tell you that there is no dispute among > scholars----NONE. Science came to accept mutability based on Darwin > 1859. That's why "The Origin" is often referred to as the book that > shook the world, or the "Darwinian Revolution." > > or this:https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7d6e11a7c5213861?hl=en > > especially this paragraph: > "You are actually asking me: who, beside myself is a species > immutabilist? I only know of a small handful (including Sean Pitman). > But I assume we are actually many. > > Before 1859, no practicing biologist accepted evolution. And natural > selection did not come into universal acceptance until the 1930s and > 40s. My claim is that science, before 1859, remains correct." > > and lots of others along the same lines, claiming that before Darwin > species fixism ruled. Backspace equally consistently clams the > opposite > > and quite a number of others. You seemed to argue pretty consistently > that "no naturalist before darwin " (then typically accepting

Talking about misquoting. Burkhard I would plead with you to re-evaluate your position that Jerry Fodor asked a rhetorical question on LRB in his What Darwin got wrong article. Go to http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/2492 and listen for the part where Fodor says the following:

.... If you scratch two biologists, you get two different definitions of natural selection .....

Fodor realized that after saying stuff like :..... by the process of natural selection one species came to dominate his ecological niche.... he had not the remotest clue what he actually meant with natural selection.

This is something I have been trying to point out for the last four years around here , by showing the subtle ridiculous implications from off-the cuff remarks people make about natural selection, when they are not really thinking. This is from YEC to Atheist.

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence

..Natural Selection mimics intelligence...- Stephen Meyer. If ns mimics intelligence then why can't it mimic stupidity?

... Natural Selection is blind... - Kenneth Miller If ns is blind then why isn't it stupid?

notes2 Edit

On Jan 14, 8:22 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 13, 7:02 pm, Anthony022071 <anthony022...@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 13, 8:54 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 13, 12:55 pm, Burkhard wrote: > > > > > On Jan 13, 12:35 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 13, 11:02 am, Burkhard wrote:

> > > > > > If their > > > > > > preferred definition has demonstrable merits, eventually it will > > > > > > become accepted. Or it turns out that both definitions have merit, but > > > > > > work better for different applications. If I want to find out how to > > > > > > manage a wildlife park, I may well need a subtly different definition > > > > > > of NS than when I'm working on antibiotic resistance in a laboratory > > > > > > environment, or when I 'm a palaeontologist trying to work out where a > > > > > > newly discovered fossil fits in etc etc. But all definitions will > > > > > > share a core meaning, and communication across subject boundaries is > > > > > > rarely  a problem - big nails and small nails are still nails, just > > > > > > suitable for different jobs. > > > > > > Which suggests that natural selection functions as some sort of > > > > > universal mechanism which is just as implausible as a single > > > > > differential equation explaining of all of physics. > > > > > It doesn't suggest anything like this, not any more than nails are a > > > > universal mechanism for anything. Being very versatile and being > > > > universal are not the same thing. > > > > > > This of course still begs the question: what is a natural selection? > > > > > Since the Fodor quote to which I replied was very specific, about the > > > > meaning of having several definitions for one concept and its > > > > implications,  it does no such thing either. It answers exactly the > > > > question that was asked. > > > > Ok, let me try again: What is a natural selection? > > > At bottom it's basically a gradualistic process of elimination,and > > though it does not actually create anything,it is illogically > > attributed with the ability to produce new varieties of species. New > > varieties of species come into existence through the conception and > > reproduction of individual creatures,regardless of whether some traits > > decrease in frequency. > > Which still begs the question: What is a natural selection.  I have no > doubt that there indeed can be some yet to be defined process that > does gradualistic elimination - this is the effect and is so > generalized that anything could be the cause.

If you are referring to Darwin's theory then this process of elimination is 'natural means of competitive selection,elimination or preservation'. Darwin used ns as the metaphor for this theory which belongs to Matthew. He in turn condensed Buffon, Lamarck, Erasmus. Who in turn formulated http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Aristotle


Rephrase what you wrote: It's a process of elimination via the natural means of competitive selection,preservation etc.

This is not Popper falsifiable ,because if the other creature were eliminated we would be told the same thing. The argument is formulated such as in the immortal words of Darwin himself: .... the truth of the propositions cannot be disputed ....

Hence the propositions are not http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Popper falsifiable.

notes 3 Edit

On Jan 15, 10:04 am, Burkhard wrote: > > > Which still begs the question: What is a natural selection.  I have no > > > doubt that there indeed can be some yet to be defined process that > > > does gradualistic elimination - this is the effect and is so > > > generalized that anything could be the cause. > > > If you are referring to Darwin's theory then this process of > > elimination is 'natural means of competitive selection,elimination or > > preservation'.  Darwin used ns as the metaphor for this theory which > > belongs to Matthew. He in turn condensed Buffon, Lamarck, Erasmus. Who > > in turn formulatedhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Aristotle > > > Rephrase what you wrote: > > > It's a process of elimination via the natural means of competitive > > selection,preservation etc. > > > This is not Popper falsifiable > > a statement backspace repeats even though it has been falsified - in > this thread alone, I've given him 5 possible observations that would > falsify the existence of natural selection.

The fact that creatures could gain attributes by engaging in Patrick matthew's 'natural(unintended) means of competitive selection,preservation or elimination' certainly exists, but is not falsifiable. There is no test one could devise to disprove that such new attributes couldn't be obtained.

That is if you used ns as the metaphor for the meaningful sentence 'Creatures obtained attributes via the unintended means of competitive selection,preservation'.

Because ns as a standalone semantic construct is an oxymoron, one must use it metaphorically. If used literally as Ken Ham, dembski, etc. we have the formulation of a meaningless sentence. Google meaningless+sentence , my notes on this should be indexed.

Notes 4 Edit

On Jan 22, 11:09 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > I falsify that statement by giving you just such an equation that has > > > the word "advantage" in it: > > > " the actual mechanical advantage of a system in practice will be > > > less than > > > the theoretical value by an amount determined by the amount of > > > friction" > > > Anotherhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_paradoxBerry's paradox > > situation. > > You mean 'advantage5', while I meant 'advantage3' . > > Nothing self-referential here. You made a claim, I falsified it. You > now try to immunise your initial  statement against falsification by > arbitrarily distinguishing different meanings of advantageous". That > makes your own statement a tautology. Yes, it is true that biological > term are not used in physics, and physical terms are not used  in > biology, which is what your statement about "advantageous" now amounts > to. A trivial, tautologically true and meaningless injection.


The reason I linked to http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Ken_Ham is to avoid having to repeat myself.

V=IR, F=MA and Newton's inverse square law are *equations*, there are hundreds of equations in physics, none of these equations contain the word 'advantage' or 'favorable'. The transition matrix that maps the proteome phase space into a 3-dimensional Eagle is an equation in a sense. It won't contain 'favorable','natural' or 'selection'. There is some mechanism whereby the neural flight control algorithms are transferred to the baby eagle. The question is: Where exactly is this algorithm stored? Is it stored in the proteins or like sentences in a book does it only represent a higher abstract idea that has no physical location.

These are word terms that function as lower level scaffolding for higher level ideas, they can't be invoked or used as physics equations themselves . Both Ken Han and you are getting confused on this issue, which is why we must use these word terms and tag them with subscripts.

Notes 5 Edit

> > > A polar bear will die in the desert, while a camel will die  at the > > pole. Is this a matter of being adapted to their condition of > > existence(environment) or are they merely expressing their attributes? > > And what has that to do with your claim about your quote being > unfalsifiable getting falsified, again, through a counter example? Or > did you helpfully mean to supply two other examples? If we observed > that all environmental change is so radical like an immediate switch > between desert and Arctic environments, or if we observed that > environmental change always kills immediately the previous inhabitants > of that environment, NS would again be falsified. > > As for your question, I have no idea what you mean with "expressing > their attributes" as opposed to "being adapted". However, as far as > the concept of NS is concerned, it does not matter much on what it > works, provided it is a heritable trait. So there is nothing in NS > alone that would be inconsistent with all possible expressions of > biological traits being stored in the DNA and only triggered by > environment, if that is what you mean, That we can rule pretty much > rule out that idea has nothing to do with NS and the observations that > support it, but on what we know about things like mutation rates and > DNA in general.


Lets go back in a time machine to before Matthew lets say 1792 when James Hutton wrote his treatise and 'natural selection' wasn't yet coined by Matthew.

Both in 1792 and today in 2011 there was the premise that attributes as observed weren't in the previous generations of creatures, but increased by *some yet to be defined mechanism*.

Thus there are two clear issues we need to demarcate between:

  • 1) The premise that present day attributes as expressed by the polar bear weren't there to express in the ancient ancestors of the polar bear whether of the same species or not.
  • 2) If we assume the premise as correct , then it raises the question: By what mechanism did such attributes become available to each successive descendant.

The question can only be raised as to the mechanism if the premise is accepted. Since YEC don't accept the premise the question is therefore not raised.

Since Ken Ham uses the term 'Natural Selection' but like me as a YEC he doesn't accept the premise he is thus committing a logical fallacy.

It is the same type of situation with Dawkins rhetorical question: If God made us, who made God? His question can be generalized: Why is a phenomena, that is defined as possessing a property not have that property?

Notes 6 Edit

On Jan 22, 12:20 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > On Jan 22, 11:48 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 10:35 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > On Jan 22, 6:58 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 21, 3:57 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 21, 1:53 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >http://web.archive.org/web/20110111025900/http://www.episcopalchurch.... > > > > > > > What is biological evolution? > > > > > > > ......Biological evolution means that living things change over > > > > > > time.  A great variety and diversity of organisms have come into > > > > > > existence over the past four billion years from one or a few original > > > > > > life forms.  All living things—bacteria, archaebacteria, protists, > > > > > > fungi, plants and animals, including human beings—are descendants of > > > > > > other life forms, most of which are extinct.  The evidence for > > > > > > evolution shows that all life on earth is related and interconnected, > > > > > > and is often depicted as a great "Tree of Life."  Evolution happens > > > > > > gradually, sometimes at a rapid rate and sometimes slowly, but never > > > > > > with discontinuities.  Evolution happens because of natural selection; > > > > > > in the face of environmental pressures, some organisms will survive at > > > > > > higher rates than others.  Charles Darwin was the first to bring > > > > > > together all these ideas.  Scientific researchers since Darwin have > > > > > > refined and added to them, but never thrown out his basic theoretical > > > > > > framework............. > > > > > > > Rephrase: > > > > > > The basic theoretical framework of Darwin was that in the face of > > > > > > environmental pressures, some organisms will survive at higher rates > > > > > > than others. > > > > > > > Rephrase: > > > > > > Darwin's framework was that for whatever reason, some organisms will > > > > > > survive at higher rates than others. > > > > > > > Rephrase: > > > > > > For whatever reason, some organisms will survive at higher rates than > > > > > > others. > > > > > > > Rephrase: > > > > > > For whatever reason, some will increase , while others will decrease > > > > > > as they engage in a natural means of competitive selection. > > > > > > > This is not falsifiable, because if the other creature survived we > > > > > > would be told the same thing. > > > > > > If you observe that neither increases or decreases, but all stay > > > > > stable, it is falsified > > > > > A polar bear will die in the desert, while a camel will die  at the > > > > pole. Is this a matter of being adapted to their condition of > > > > existence(environment) or are they merely expressing their attributes? > > > > And what has that to do with your claim about your quote being > > > unfalsifiable getting falsified, again, through a counter example? Or > > > did you helpfully mean to supply two other examples? If we observed > > > that all environmental change is so radical like an immediate switch > > > between desert and Arctic environments, or if we observed that > > > environmental change always kills immediately the previous inhabitants > > > of that environment, NS would again be falsified. > > > > As for your question, I have no idea what you mean with "expressing > > > their attributes" as opposed to "being adapted". However, as far as > > > the concept of NS is concerned, it does not matter much on what it > > > works, provided it is a heritable trait. So there is nothing in NS > > > alone that would be inconsistent with all possible expressions of > > > biological traits being stored in the DNA and only triggered by > > > environment, if that is what you mean, That we can rule pretty much > > > rule out that idea has nothing to do with NS and the observations that > > > support it, but on what we know about things like mutation rates and > > > DNA in general. > > > Lets go back in a time machine to before Matthew lets say 1792 when > > James Hutton wrote his treatise and 'natural selection' wasn't yet > > coined by Matthew. > > > Both in 1792 and today in 2011 there was the premise that attributes > > as observed weren't in the previous generations of creatures, but > > increased by *some yet to be defined mechanism*. > > Has nothing to do with NS directly, which is about the rlaive > ferquency of attributes > > > > > Thus there are two clear issues we need to demarcate between: > > 1) The premise that present day attributes as expressed by the polar > > bear weren't there to express in the ancient ancestors of the polar > > bear whether of the same species or not. > > 2) If we assume the premise as correct , then it raises the question: > > By what mechanism did such attributes become available to each > > successive descendant. > > > The question can only be raised as to the mechanism if the premise is > > accepted. Since YEC don't accept the premise the question is therefore > > not raised.


> The evidence of observing populations changing now (from breeding > programmes to acquired immunity against drugs of bacteria etc etc) > and the observations from the fossil record, establish that change > took and takes  place.

You are jumping from something we did not observe(interaction with live dinosaurs) to something we observe(drug resistance). In both cases the YEC premise is the same: they are not nor ever did adapt to anything but only expressed their attributes. When an expression of an attribute is seen in bacteria, not previously observed then we have the first observation of the expression of a pre-existing attribute.

We must not assume that witnessing an attribution expression for the first time , means that the attribute didn't previously exist.


> That  raises the question how the change came > about, not an arbitrary "assumption".

It begs the question because it states a conclusion without stating the premise, namely that the change came about by acquiring attributes that weren't previously there.

and once we look into it, we > again observe something, that is, we observe mutation rates that would > tell us that change is boudn to happen even if w did not have the > evidence of the actual change itself.

It raises the question: 1) Did the expression of an attribute we see for the first time previously exist or was the attribute acquired via some yet to be defined mechanism.

Notes 7 =Edit

To clarify what you mean with NS: NS -> some yet to be defined mechanism.

Premise: Assume that attributes presently expressed weren't in the previous distant populations.

Thus to rephrase: None of this has anything to do with the yet to be defined mechanism responsible for present attribution expression that we assume weren't there in the distant populations. The reason we have to assume this is because we are not able to study those distant ancestors. In fact we don't know whether the fossil of one ancestor isn't of the same species as another found in different layer of rock. We have never seen any of these ancestors mate millions of years ago and thus can't determine if they are of the same species or not via observation.

By observation it is determined that a chiwawa and great dane are of the same species. Since we couldn't observe the dinosaurs interacting naturally we don't know which types were of the same species or not.

notes 8 Edit

On Jan 21, 3:57 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > On Jan 21, 1:53 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >http://web.archive.org/web/20110111025900/http://www.episcopalchurch.... > > > What is biological evolution? > > > ......Biological evolution means that living things change over > > time.  A great variety and diversity of organisms have come into > > existence over the past four billion years from one or a few original > > life forms.  All living things—bacteria, archaebacteria, protists, > > fungi, plants and animals, including human beings—are descendants of > > other life forms, most of which are extinct.  The evidence for > > evolution shows that all life on earth is related and interconnected, > > and is often depicted as a great "Tree of Life."  Evolution happens > > gradually, sometimes at a rapid rate and sometimes slowly, but never > > with discontinuities.  Evolution happens because of natural selection; > > in the face of environmental pressures, some organisms will survive at > > higher rates than others.  Charles Darwin was the first to bring > > together all these ideas.  Scientific researchers since Darwin have > > refined and added to them, but never thrown out his basic theoretical > > framework.............

> > Rephrase: > > The basic theoretical framework of Darwin was that in the face of > > environmental pressures, some organisms will survive at higher rates > > than others.

> > Rephrase: > > Darwin's framework was that for whatever reason, some organisms will > > survive at higher rates than others.

> > Rephrase: > > For whatever reason, some organisms will survive at higher rates than > > others.

> > Rephrase: > > For whatever reason, some will increase , while others will decrease > > as they engage in a natural means of competitive selection.

> > This is not falsifiable, because if the other creature survived we > > would be told the same thing.

  • > If you observe that neither increases or decreases, but all stay
  • > stable, it is falsified

My reply: The premise is adaptation, meaning that new attributes were added. Your reply changed the premise.

Notes 9 Edit

On Jan 24, 12:25 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > On Jan 24, 12:13 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 21, 3:57 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > On Jan 21, 1:53 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >http://web.archive.org/web/20110111025900/http://www.episcopalchurch.... > > > > > What is biological evolution? > > > > > ......Biological evolution means that living things change over > > > > time. A great variety and diversity of organisms have come into > > > > existence over the past four billion years from one or a few original > > > > life forms. All living things bacteria, archaebacteria, protists, > > > > fungi, plants and animals, including human beings are descendants of > > > > other life forms, most of which are extinct. The evidence for > > > > evolution shows that all life on earth is related and interconnected, > > > > and is often depicted as a great "Tree of Life." Evolution happens > > > > gradually, sometimes at a rapid rate and sometimes slowly, but never > > > > with discontinuities. Evolution happens because of natural selection; > > > > in the face of environmental pressures, some organisms will survive at > > > > higher rates than others. Charles Darwin was the first to bring > > > > together all these ideas. Scientific researchers since Darwin have > > > > refined and added to them, but never thrown out his basic theoretical > > > > framework............. > > > > > Rephrase: > > > > The basic theoretical framework of Darwin was that in the face of > > > > environmental pressures, some organisms will survive at higher rates > > > > than others. > > > > > Rephrase: > > > > Darwin's framework was that for whatever reason, some organisms will > > > > survive at higher rates than others. > > > > > Rephrase: > > > > For whatever reason, some organisms will survive at higher rates than > > > > others. > > > > > Rephrase: > > > > For whatever reason, some will increase , while others will decrease > > > > as they engage in a natural means of competitive selection. > > > > > This is not falsifiable, because if the other creature survived we > > > > would be told the same thing. > > > > If you observe that neither increases or decreases, but all stay > > > stable, it is falsified

> > The premise is adaptation, meaning that new attributes were added. > > Your reply changed the premise.

> Nope, that is an artefact of your incompetent rephrasing. Nor does > adaptation itself  mean that new attributes are added.

From the first living cell to a fluffy cajoling polar bear there certainly was an adding of attributes that weren't in the first living cell. *adaptation* is the term we use to represent this concept. If you disagree with the premise then please formulate your premise so that we can coin a term , avoiding the need to formulate an entire sentence each time. For example 'natural selection' should always be seen as the short-hand for Matthew's 'natural means of competitive selection'. If one does not agree with this then clearly state so providing reason and coin a different term or use subscripts.

The semantics isn't the issue but the concepts.

Pagano Edit

On Jan 7, 6:17 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 21:47:55 -0800 (PST), backspace > > > > > > > > > > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Jan 7, 12:44 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace > > >> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/ > > >> >.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in > >> >which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors > >> >cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced > >> >them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318).... > > >> Taken out of context this certainly lacks clarity.  And taken in > >> isolation (as offered here by backspace) it doesn't sound particularly > >> Darwinian unless "extinction" is being used by Hull in some non > >> standard way. > > >> Hull seems to be suggesting some sort of non Darwinian theory.  While > >> Darwinists include extinction as having some role, it has never held a > >> central role (as far as I know).  Instead Darwinists usually theorize > >> that it is the effects of  "differential survival" and "differential > >> reproduction" given a series of mutations which drives > >> transformational change from WITHIN a species grouping. > > >The DR was coined byhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnTyndall he > >meant by differential the small changes in each generation until new > >species formed. It is a term and as such can't be used stand-alone,, > >one must refer to authors and full sentences. > > Since neither the isolated sentence you offered from Hull nor my > comments implied otherwise why raise this? > > > > >Differential itself does not give scale, it could be large or small. > > Not true.  While Darwin treated the unknown biological mechanisms as > black boxes he theorized that the "differential" would be small from > one generation to the next.  Nothing has changed today.  The changes > from one generation to the next are relatively small. > > >DR and NS should be seen as the metaphor for Matthew's 'natural means > >of competitive selection' , which implies that the losing creature > >will go extinct. The story is no falsifiable because if the other > >creature died we would be told the same thing. > > 1.   "Differential reproduction" and "natural selection" are not two > different mechanisms.  Natural Selection is a label that includes both > "differential reproduction" and "differential survival." > > 2.  Competition between species is NOT the universal cause of > extinction or necessarily even a significant cause of extinction. > Recall that Darwin (in formulating his theory) extrapolated "from" > Malthus's theory of competition in human society groupings "to" > collections of different species in any ecological niche.  Darwin > presumed that competition for limited resources would be fierce, > unrelenting, and to the death---a driving force for change.  However > we know today that Malthus's theory as extrapolted by Darwin is false. > Usually ecological niches are balanced and not in competition amoung > species to the death.   > > 2.  Extinction (whatever its cause) is important in that it is an > environmental factor (among many) that has an effect on "differential > reproduction" and "differential survival" among those species still > left in the same niche.

Did the creatures acquire attributes in this natural means of competitive survival(selection) or are they expressing their attributes? How would you know the difference. What premise is being assumed.

Links Edit

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.