Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Darwin's theory of extinction

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 12:42:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Can someone please explain how Darwin's theory is an evolutionary theory, rather than a extinction theory?

Darwin only came up with natural selection.
To explain mutations he relied on the Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics.
To explain the origins of life, he relied on pangenesis.

NeoDarwinism replaces Lamarchian inheritance with Mendelian genetic principles, and drops the idea of pangenesis.

The only constant in Darwinism is Natural selection. Natural selection only explains extinction and does not explain evolution. The mutation explains evolution of the DNA, Natural Selection only explains how certain features die out.

For example, lets say there was a finch with a medium size beak, it has two mutant babies. One baby has a slightly smaller beak, one has a slightly larger beak.
The finch has now evolved.
The larger beak finch dies out, and smaller beak finch lives. One of the evolutions has just went extinct.

Thus Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" does not explain evolution, but rather explains extinction. Evolution happens independently of Natural Selection; natural selection just weeds out variants through extinction.

Just because Darwinism speeds up evolution, does not mean it causes evolution. The mutation causes evolution, Natural Selection just narrows the gene pool.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 12:57:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Let's go with your finch theory again. A finch with a large beak has a normal baby (with a large beak) and a mutant baby (with a small beak.) You just say that large beaks die out. But there has to be a reason behind why the large beaked finches died out. One cannot say that it just "died out" out of the blue. Maybe the small-beaked finch could get the finch's favorite food source more easily, thereby being able to have more offspring, and passing it's genes onto its offspring. The small-beaked finches compete with the large-beaked finches, the large beaked finches cannot reproduce as well, and the large-beaked finches eventually die out. The gene pool remains constant; one genotype is replaced by another. Evolution is a process of not just more than "mutation, one dies, new species."
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:05:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just because Darwinism speeds up evolution, does not mean it causes evolution. The mutation causes evolution, Natural Selection just narrows the gene pool.:

Where was it ever stated that Natural Selection was the only qualifier in explaining evolution? Darwin certainly never maintained that view.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:59:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 12:57:45 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Let's go with your finch theory again. A finch with a large beak has a normal baby (with a large beak) and a mutant baby (with a small beak.) You just say that large beaks die out. But there has to be a reason behind why the large beaked finches died out. One cannot say that it just "died out" out of the blue.

extinction =/= evolution; they died out because of natural selection, but they did not evolve because of natural selection.

Maybe the small-beaked finch could get the finch's favorite food source more easily, thereby being able to have more offspring, and passing it's genes onto its offspring.

Again extinction =/= evolution; they are 2 desperate ideas

The small-beaked finches compete with the large-beaked finches, the large beaked finches cannot reproduce as well, and the large-beaked finches eventually die out. The gene pool remains constant; one genotype is replaced by another.

No it's not replaced; if a tree has 2 main branches, and you cut one of those branches off, you did not replace a branch, you eliminated a branch.

Evolution is a process of not just more than "mutation, one dies, new species."

Didn't say that. I said multiple mini evolutions take place, and and some min evolutions go extinct.

Take for example Homo antecessor, Homo ancestor is the common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals.
Hypothetical speaking, say it only takes one mutation to evolve, as opposed to multiple mini evolutions. Homo Ancestor evolved into humans and Neanderthals; Neanderthals died out due to natural selection, and humans survived. Did humans evolve because Neanderthals died? No, became Neanderthals were our cousins.

To better explain, here is a diagram of natural selection;
http://www.daviddarling.info...

If you look at the diagram, natural selection plays no role in creating a new mutation, but rather ending mutations that were previously formed. The mutation is evolution, and natural selection is simply the extinction of a branch.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:03:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:05:35 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Just because Darwinism speeds up evolution, does not mean it causes evolution. The mutation causes evolution, Natural Selection just narrows the gene pool.:

Where was it ever stated that Natural Selection was the only qualifier in explaining evolution? Darwin certainly never maintained that view.

(n) Charles Robert Darwin (English natural scientist who formulated a theory of evolution by natural selection (1809-1882)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(n) Darwinism (a theory of organic evolution claiming that new species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Darwinism states that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:05:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:59:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/4/2012 12:57:45 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Let's go with your finch theory again. A finch with a large beak has a normal baby (with a large beak) and a mutant baby (with a small beak.) You just say that large beaks die out. But there has to be a reason behind why the large beaked finches died out. One cannot say that it just "died out" out of the blue.

extinction =/= evolution; they died out because of natural selection, but they did not evolve because of natural selection.

Maybe the small-beaked finch could get the finch's favorite food source more easily, thereby being able to have more offspring, and passing it's genes onto its offspring.

Again extinction =/= evolution; they are 2 desperate ideas
meant to say separate but the phone changed my word
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:35:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Natural selection does not create new genes, mutation does. " Mutation + selection = diversification " is the basic equation for evolution.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:42:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 2:35:48 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Natural selection does not create new genes, mutation does. " Mutation + selection = diversification " is the basic equation for evolution.

Never claimed it did.
Furthermore, mutation = diversification, and selection = extinction.

If Mutation = m, and selection = s than m<s = a decrease in diversity, and m>s = a increase in diversity.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:48:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 2:42:48 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:35:48 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Natural selection does not create new genes, mutation does. " Mutation + selection = diversification " is the basic equation for evolution.

Never claimed it did.
Furthermore, mutation = diversification, and selection = extinction.

If Mutation = m, and selection = s than m<s = a decrease in diversity, and m>s = a increase in diversity.

M & S work so that if M1 is better than M, then M1 continues onwards, then if M2 is better than M1, M2 continues onwards, and if M3 is worse than M2, then M2 continues onwards, etc. etc.

S is just the process.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:49:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Furthermore, this is science, not politics.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:56:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 2:48:16 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:42:48 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:35:48 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Natural selection does not create new genes, mutation does. " Mutation + selection = diversification " is the basic equation for evolution.

Never claimed it did.
Furthermore, mutation = diversification, and selection = extinction.

If Mutation = m, and selection = s than m<s = a decrease in diversity, and m>s = a increase in diversity.

M & S work so that if M1 is better than M, then M1 continues onwards, then if M2 is better than M1, M2 continues onwards, and if M3 is worse than M2, then M2 continues onwards, etc. etc.

S is just the process.

S is not the process of evolution, M is. S is the process whereby the weaker link goes extinct.

If M is worse than M1, then M goes extinct due to S, then if M1 is worse than M2, M1 goes extinct due to S, and if M2 is better than M1, then M2, because M3 went extinct due to S.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:56:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 2:49:22 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Furthermore, this is science, not politics.

It overlaps
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 3:30:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 12:42:32 PM, DanT wrote:
Can someone please explain how Darwin's theory is an evolutionary theory, rather than a extinction theory?

Darwin only came up with natural selection.
To explain mutations he relied on the Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics.
To explain the origins of life, he relied on pangenesis.

NeoDarwinism replaces Lamarchian inheritance with Mendelian genetic principles, and drops the idea of pangenesis.

The only constant in Darwinism is Natural selection. Natural selection only explains extinction and does not explain evolution. The mutation explains evolution of the DNA, Natural Selection only explains how certain features die out.

For example, lets say there was a finch with a medium size beak, it has two mutant babies. One baby has a slightly smaller beak, one has a slightly larger beak.
The finch has now evolved.
The larger beak finch dies out, and smaller beak finch lives. One of the evolutions has just went extinct.

Thus Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" does not explain evolution, but rather explains extinction. Evolution happens independently of Natural Selection; natural selection just weeds out variants through extinction.

Just because Darwinism speeds up evolution, does not mean it causes evolution. The mutation causes evolution, Natural Selection just narrows the gene pool.

Natural selection is simply a description of what occurs to a population of organisms if they fulfill several conditions:

1. Limited carrying capacity for the environment (limited resources)
2. Reproduction with variation
3. Differential reproduction

If these three conditions hold, then which organisms that survive depends on the context (selection pressures) applied.

Variation and mutation creates diversity which leads to differential reproduction. That differential reproduction depends on relevant climate and context (for instance temperature, existence of certain predators, etc).

Natural selection is, in a sense, a theory of extinction. Specifically, why nearly all species go extinct but SOME don't. Or why nearly all organisms in a species will go extinct but some don't.

"Survival of the fittest" is simply a means of describing differential reproduction.

Mutations and variations lead to diversity. Natural selection acts upon diversity.

Other facts like artificial selection, sexual selection, or genetic drift can also effect variation and mutation rates in a manner which biases whether or not they go extinct.

Evolutionary Theory has changed over time. At first, gemmules were the unit of inheritance. Then, after the modern synthesis, DNA became the prime target of variation. Now, a more holistic approach sees "variation" as applying to all levels of biology, from DNA to epigenetics to symbolic systems.

The entire time, however, Darwin has remained correct. Evolution is driven by variation which is acted upon by the environment to produce consistent changes in population traits.

So, if you like, you could call Evolution "a theory of extinction" but all you are doing is conforming more to the views of evolutionists like Ernst Mayr and Gould (they viewed evolution through a punk-eek lens where natural selection acts in short, powerful bursts as opposed to constant pressure).

Without natural selection, all you would have is a population accumulating variation over time. The variation would not be related to fitness or even function. There would be no "evolution" related to adapting to the environment.

Also, don't know where you're getting this m<s bit, but it is complete and utter nonsense.

Let's say you have a population that is 90% allele A and 10% allele B. A small meteor comes out of nowhere and wipes out three fourths of the population. Meanwhile, no new generation has been created so no "mutation" has taken place.

The meteor leaves a population with 50% allele A and 50% allele B. Is the population now more diverse? Remember, evolution as defined by the modern synthesis is "changes in allele frequencies in a population."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 4:25:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 3:30:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/4/2012 12:42:32 PM, DanT wrote:
Can someone please explain how Darwin's theory is an evolutionary theory, rather than a extinction theory?

Darwin only came up with natural selection.
To explain mutations he relied on the Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics.
To explain the origins of life, he relied on pangenesis.

NeoDarwinism replaces Lamarchian inheritance with Mendelian genetic principles, and drops the idea of pangenesis.

The only constant in Darwinism is Natural selection. Natural selection only explains extinction and does not explain evolution. The mutation explains evolution of the DNA, Natural Selection only explains how certain features die out.

For example, lets say there was a finch with a medium size beak, it has two mutant babies. One baby has a slightly smaller beak, one has a slightly larger beak.
The finch has now evolved.
The larger beak finch dies out, and smaller beak finch lives. One of the evolutions has just went extinct.

Thus Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" does not explain evolution, but rather explains extinction. Evolution happens independently of Natural Selection; natural selection just weeds out variants through extinction.

Just because Darwinism speeds up evolution, does not mean it causes evolution. The mutation causes evolution, Natural Selection just narrows the gene pool.

Natural selection is simply a description of what occurs to a population of organisms if they fulfill several conditions:

1. Limited carrying capacity for the environment (limited resources)
2. Reproduction with variation
3. Differential reproduction

If these three conditions hold, then which organisms that survive depends on the context (selection pressures) applied.

Variation and mutation creates diversity which leads to differential reproduction. That differential reproduction depends on relevant climate and context (for instance temperature, existence of certain predators, etc).

Natural selection is, in a sense, a theory of extinction. Specifically, why nearly all species go extinct but SOME don't. Or why nearly all organisms in a species will go extinct but some don't.


Thanx for agreeing with me

"Survival of the fittest" is simply a means of describing differential reproduction.

Mutations and variations lead to diversity. Natural selection acts upon diversity.

Other facts like artificial selection, sexual selection, or genetic drift can also effect variation and mutation rates in a manner which biases whether or not they go extinct.

Evolutionary Theory has changed over time. At first, gemmules were the unit of inheritance. Then, after the modern synthesis, DNA became the prime target of variation. Now, a more holistic approach sees "variation" as applying to all levels of biology, from DNA to epigenetics to symbolic systems.

The entire time, however, Darwin has remained correct. Evolution is driven by variation which is acted upon by the environment to produce consistent changes in population traits.


In order to prove Natural selection causes evolution, you must prove that evolution could not happen without natural selection. I see no reason to assume that evolution could not happen without natural selection.

So, if you like, you could call Evolution "a theory of extinction" but all you are doing is conforming more to the views of evolutionists like Ernst Mayr and Gould (they viewed evolution through a punk-eek lens where natural selection acts in short, powerful bursts as opposed to constant pressure).

Without natural selection, all you would have is a population accumulating variation over time. The variation would not be related to fitness or even function. There would be no "evolution" related to adapting to the environment.


If death was nonexistent, evolution could still take place, through the mutations. It would not be adapted to the environment, but it would not have to because the species would be immortal. The theoretical rate in which the evolution would take place would be dependent solely on the rate of the mutations. None the less, evolution would take place even if Natural selection did not eliminate certain species or variants.

Also, don't know where you're getting this m<s bit, but it is complete and utter nonsense.

Look back to previous posts.

Let's say you have a population that is 90% allele A and 10% allele B. A small meteor comes out of nowhere and wipes out three fourths of the population. Meanwhile, no new generation has been created so no "mutation" has taken place.

The meteor leaves a population with 50% allele A and 50% allele B. Is the population now more diverse? Remember, evolution as defined by the modern synthesis is "changes in allele frequencies in a population."

Did the meteor create allele C? No the meteor killed a chunk of allele A.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 4:44:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 4:25:32 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/4/2012 3:30:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/4/2012 12:42:32 PM, DanT wrote:
Can someone please explain how Darwin's theory is an evolutionary theory, rather than a extinction theory?

Darwin only came up with natural selection.
To explain mutations he relied on the Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics.
To explain the origins of life, he relied on pangenesis.

NeoDarwinism replaces Lamarchian inheritance with Mendelian genetic principles, and drops the idea of pangenesis.

The only constant in Darwinism is Natural selection. Natural selection only explains extinction and does not explain evolution. The mutation explains evolution of the DNA, Natural Selection only explains how certain features die out.

For example, lets say there was a finch with a medium size beak, it has two mutant babies. One baby has a slightly smaller beak, one has a slightly larger beak.
The finch has now evolved.
The larger beak finch dies out, and smaller beak finch lives. One of the evolutions has just went extinct.

Thus Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" does not explain evolution, but rather explains extinction. Evolution happens independently of Natural Selection; natural selection just weeds out variants through extinction.

Just because Darwinism speeds up evolution, does not mean it causes evolution. The mutation causes evolution, Natural Selection just narrows the gene pool.

Natural selection is simply a description of what occurs to a population of organisms if they fulfill several conditions:

1. Limited carrying capacity for the environment (limited resources)
2. Reproduction with variation
3. Differential reproduction

If these three conditions hold, then which organisms that survive depends on the context (selection pressures) applied.

Variation and mutation creates diversity which leads to differential reproduction. That differential reproduction depends on relevant climate and context (for instance temperature, existence of certain predators, etc).

Natural selection is, in a sense, a theory of extinction. Specifically, why nearly all species go extinct but SOME don't. Or why nearly all organisms in a species will go extinct but some don't.


Thanx for agreeing with me

"Survival of the fittest" is simply a means of describing differential reproduction.

Mutations and variations lead to diversity. Natural selection acts upon diversity.

Other facts like artificial selection, sexual selection, or genetic drift can also effect variation and mutation rates in a manner which biases whether or not they go extinct.

Evolutionary Theory has changed over time. At first, gemmules were the unit of inheritance. Then, after the modern synthesis, DNA became the prime target of variation. Now, a more holistic approach sees "variation" as applying to all levels of biology, from DNA to epigenetics to symbolic systems.

The entire time, however, Darwin has remained correct. Evolution is driven by variation which is acted upon by the environment to produce consistent changes in population traits.


In order to prove Natural selection causes evolution, you must prove that evolution could not happen without natural selection. I see no reason to assume that evolution could not happen without natural selection.

So, if you like, you could call Evolution "a theory of extinction" but all you are doing is conforming more to the views of evolutionists like Ernst Mayr and Gould (they viewed evolution through a punk-eek lens where natural selection acts in short, powerful bursts as opposed to constant pressure).

Without natural selection, all you would have is a population accumulating variation over time. The variation would not be related to fitness or even function. There would be no "evolution" related to adapting to the environment.


If death was nonexistent, evolution could still take place, through the mutations. It would not be adapted to the environment, but it would not have to because the species would be immortal. The theoretical rate in which the evolution would take place would be dependent solely on the rate of the mutations. None the less, evolution would take place even if Natural selection did not eliminate certain species or variants.

Also, don't know where you're getting this m<s bit, but it is complete and utter nonsense.

Look back to previous posts.

Let's say you have a population that is 90% allele A and 10% allele B. A small meteor comes out of nowhere and wipes out three fourths of the population. Meanwhile, no new generation has been created so no "mutation" has taken place.

The meteor leaves a population with 50% allele A and 50% allele B. Is the population now more diverse? Remember, evolution as defined by the modern synthesis is "changes in allele frequencies in a population."

Did the meteor create allele C? No the meteor killed a chunk of allele A.

Well, let's try to imagine how natural selection could NOT be in the picture.

Natural selection will occur unless one of three conditions I mentioned don't hold.

That means natural selection will not occur when:

1. There are infinite resources
2. Reproduction leads to zero variation
3. Variation does not effect rates of reproduction

Unless the situation involves one of the above three conditions being true, natural selection occurs regardless.

What you suggest would be something like 3, where variation exists but does not lead to differential reproduction.

How is this possible?

Unless you want to post non-carbon based organisms, the more mutations a generation has, the more likely the results are negative (statistical artifact). Natural selection acts on sex cells and embryos alike. Embryos with more mutation are more likely to not survive.

So, you have one form of natural selection already in place.

Next, lets say you've got a herd of animals that lives around the time when the world becomes much colder. Some animals will mutate to have more fur, but because there is no differential reproduction, the percentage of animals with fur will remain relatively constant.

If the cold gets bad enough, all animals that don't have that fur will die.

When you're left with the remaining "furry" animals, then as they continue to bread, only a minor portion will have that extra fur because, as previously mentioned, there is no differential reproduction. That means all but THOSE animals get wiped out. You can't reach genetic fixation, and eventually genetic drift will wipe out the remaining two or three organisms with relevant traits.

You thus guarantee that organisms cannot adapt to their environments in a sustainable way. By statistical fact, ecological niches will not be exploited in any major way organisms since only a minor percentage will have the relevant traits (and due to no differential reproduction, this percentage can't change unless mutation rates change).

Without differential reproduction, you guarantee total, instead of major, extinction the moment conditions change.

You might mean something else. However, what exactly WOULD it look like to have mutation, finite resources, differential reproduction, but no natural selection?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 5:22:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 4:44:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/4/2012 4:25:32 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/4/2012 3:30:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/4/2012 12:42:32 PM, DanT wrote:
Can someone please explain how Darwin's theory is an evolutionary theory, rather than a extinction theory?

Darwin only came up with natural selection.
To explain mutations he relied on the Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics.
To explain the origins of life, he relied on pangenesis.

NeoDarwinism replaces Lamarchian inheritance with Mendelian genetic principles, and drops the idea of pangenesis.

The only constant in Darwinism is Natural selection. Natural selection only explains extinction and does not explain evolution. The mutation explains evolution of the DNA, Natural Selection only explains how certain features die out.

For example, lets say there was a finch with a medium size beak, it has two mutant babies. One baby has a slightly smaller beak, one has a slightly larger beak.
The finch has now evolved.
The larger beak finch dies out, and smaller beak finch lives. One of the evolutions has just went extinct.

Thus Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" does not explain evolution, but rather explains extinction. Evolution happens independently of Natural Selection; natural selection just weeds out variants through extinction.

Just because Darwinism speeds up evolution, does not mean it causes evolution. The mutation causes evolution, Natural Selection just narrows the gene pool.

Natural selection is simply a description of what occurs to a population of organisms if they fulfill several conditions:

1. Limited carrying capacity for the environment (limited resources)
2. Reproduction with variation
3. Differential reproduction

If these three conditions hold, then which organisms that survive depends on the context (selection pressures) applied.

Variation and mutation creates diversity which leads to differential reproduction. That differential reproduction depends on relevant climate and context (for instance temperature, existence of certain predators, etc).

Natural selection is, in a sense, a theory of extinction. Specifically, why nearly all species go extinct but SOME don't. Or why nearly all organisms in a species will go extinct but some don't.


Thanx for agreeing with me

"Survival of the fittest" is simply a means of describing differential reproduction.

Mutations and variations lead to diversity. Natural selection acts upon diversity.

Other facts like artificial selection, sexual selection, or genetic drift can also effect variation and mutation rates in a manner which biases whether or not they go extinct.

Evolutionary Theory has changed over time. At first, gemmules were the unit of inheritance. Then, after the modern synthesis, DNA became the prime target of variation. Now, a more holistic approach sees "variation" as applying to all levels of biology, from DNA to epigenetics to symbolic systems.

The entire time, however, Darwin has remained correct. Evolution is driven by variation which is acted upon by the environment to produce consistent changes in population traits.


In order to prove Natural selection causes evolution, you must prove that evolution could not happen without natural selection. I see no reason to assume that evolution could not happen without natural selection.

So, if you like, you could call Evolution "a theory of extinction" but all you are doing is conforming more to the views of evolutionists like Ernst Mayr and Gould (they viewed evolution through a punk-eek lens where natural selection acts in short, powerful bursts as opposed to constant pressure).

Without natural selection, all you would have is a population accumulating variation over time. The variation would not be related to fitness or even function. There would be no "evolution" related to adapting to the environment.


If death was nonexistent, evolution could still take place, through the mutations. It would not be adapted to the environment, but it would not have to because the species would be immortal. The theoretical rate in which the evolution would take place would be dependent solely on the rate of the mutations. None the less, evolution would take place even if Natural selection did not eliminate certain species or variants.

Also, don't know where you're getting this m<s bit, but it is complete and utter nonsense.

Look back to previous posts.

Let's say you have a population that is 90% allele A and 10% allele B. A small meteor comes out of nowhere and wipes out three fourths of the population. Meanwhile, no new generation has been created so no "mutation" has taken place.

The meteor leaves a population with 50% allele A and 50% allele B. Is the population now more diverse? Remember, evolution as defined by the modern synthesis is "changes in allele frequencies in a population."

Did the meteor create allele C? No the meteor killed a chunk of allele A.

Well, let's try to imagine how natural selection could NOT be in the picture.

Natural selection will occur unless one of three conditions I mentioned don't hold.

That means natural selection will not occur when:

1. There are infinite resources
2. Reproduction leads to zero variation
3. Variation does not effect rates of reproduction

Unless the situation involves one of the above three conditions being true, natural selection occurs regardless.

What you suggest would be something like 3, where variation exists but does not lead to differential reproduction.

How is this possible?

Unless you want to post non-carbon based organisms, the more mutations a generation has, the more likely the results are negative (statistical artifact). Natural selection acts on sex cells and embryos alike. Embryos with more mutation are more likely to not survive.

So, you have one form of natural selection already in place.

Next, lets say you've got a herd of animals that lives around the time when the world becomes much colder. Some animals will mutate to have more fur, but because there is no differential reproduction, the percentage of animals with fur will remain relatively constant.

If the cold gets bad enough, all animals that don't have that fur will die.

When you're left with the remaining "furry" animals, then as they continue to bread, only a minor portion will have that extra fur because, as previously mentioned, there is no differential reproduction. That means all but THOSE animals get wiped out. You can't reach genetic fixation, and eventually genetic drift will wipe out the remaining two or three organisms with relevant traits.

You thus guarantee that organisms cannot adapt to their environments in a sustainable way. By statistical fact, ecological niches will not be exploited in any major way organisms since only a minor percentage will have the relevant traits (and due to no differential reproduction, this percentage can't change unless mutation rates change).

Without differential reproduction, you guarantee total, instead of major, extinction the moment conditions change.

You might mean something else. However, what exactly WOULD it look like to have mutation, finite resources, differential reproduction, but no natural selection?

Again imagine animals cannot die, would there still be evolution? The answer is yes.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 3:28:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 5:22:55 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/4/2012 4:44:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
Natural selection will occur unless one of three conditions I mentioned don't hold.

That means natural selection will not occur when:

1. There are infinite resources
2. Reproduction leads to zero variation
3. Variation does not effect rates of reproduction

Unless the situation involves one of the above three conditions being true, natural selection occurs regardless.

What you suggest would be something like 3, where variation exists but does not lead to differential reproduction.

How is this possible?

Unless you want to post non-carbon based organisms, the more mutations a generation has, the more likely the results are negative (statistical artifact). Natural selection acts on sex cells and embryos alike. Embryos with more mutation are more likely to not survive.

So, you have one form of natural selection already in place.

Next, lets say you've got a herd of animals that lives around the time when the world becomes much colder. Some animals will mutate to have more fur, but because there is no differential reproduction, the percentage of animals with fur will remain relatively constant.

If the cold gets bad enough, all animals that don't have that fur will die.

When you're left with the remaining "furry" animals, then as they continue to bread, only a minor portion will have that extra fur because, as previously mentioned, there is no differential reproduction. That means all but THOSE animals get wiped out. You can't reach genetic fixation, and eventually genetic drift will wipe out the remaining two or three organisms with relevant traits.

You thus guarantee that organisms cannot adapt to their environments in a sustainable way. By statistical fact, ecological niches will not be exploited in any major way organisms since only a minor percentage will have the relevant traits (and due to no differential reproduction, this percentage can't change unless mutation rates change).

Without differential reproduction, you guarantee total, instead of major, extinction the moment conditions change.

You might mean something else. However, what exactly WOULD it look like to have mutation, finite resources, differential reproduction, but no natural selection?

Again imagine animals cannot die, would there still be evolution? The answer is yes.

So, you are now positing a world where proposition 1 (resources are unlimited) holds. In order for immortality to be feasible, resources needed to remain immortal cannot run out.

If your contention is "there will be no natural selection if all organisms are immortal and there is no differential reproductive rates" then we are in agreement.

However, this is a like saying the free market functions without the invisible hand because you could imagine a situation where all individuals have infinite access to utility, creating total social isolation (if transaction costs are not equal to zero). When free markets function where resources are limited (i.e. reality), the invisible hand appears bright as day.

If you want the REAL world (no immortality, limited resources) then natural selection occurs and you get differential reproductive rates.

If you want to talk about evolution in a world where everyone is immortal, resources are infinite, and there is no differential reproduction, then yes, natural selection will not be present.

However, if you want to talk about REALITY, you cannot coherently talk about evolution without natural selection (unless you have a scenario where one of the above three conditions holds).

You could just as easily argue that DNA is completely unnecessary for animals to evolve since, in a world where there is zero DNA variation but epigenetic variation, you'd have selection acting on levels other than DNA.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 4:20:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I said a world where they are immortal because it's easier to eliminate natural selection from the equation. Again you did not answer my question, if natural selection didn't drop genes from the gene pool, would evolution still take place. You still haven't answered my question.

Say S = natural selection, and M = mutation

(M1<M2) + S = M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + S = M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) + S = M3

(M1<M2) = M1 & M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) = M1 & M2 & M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) = M1 & M2 & M3 & M4

If natural selection is taken out of the equation, you still have evolution, only more variation.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 4:59:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 4:20:42 PM, DanT wrote:
I said a world where they are immortal because it's easier to eliminate natural selection from the equation. Again you did not answer my question, if natural selection didn't drop genes from the gene pool, would evolution still take place. You still haven't answered my question.

Say S = natural selection, and M = mutation

(M1<M2) + S = M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + S = M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) + S = M3

(M1<M2) = M1 & M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) = M1 & M2 & M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) = M1 & M2 & M3 & M4

If natural selection is taken out of the equation, you still have evolution, only more variation.

All you seem to be arguing is that one of Darwin's additions to evolutionary theory (as opposed to what he drew from Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, Malthus etc) was natural selection, and that you can refer to pre-Darwinian evolutionary theorys which deny it existing.

If you want to tell people "evolution can occur without natural selection" that's fine UNLESS you want to posit all three of the following:

1. Limited resources
2. Variation
3. Differential reproduction

If these three conditions hold, you cannot explain population genetics over time without natural selection. It might be overpowered by genetic drift if the selection pressure is small enough, but it is still present, even at the level of sex cells.

It's like saying "if genetic drift is taken out of the picture, evolution occurs."

Technically that is true. However, it's impossible to realistically model population genetics without taking genetic drift into account. You end up with a strawman definition of "evolution" which can easily be shown faulty.

Evolution can technically be defined as any kind of change. Before Darwin, the term was used to talk about theories which would be considered completely incapatible with modern science. If that's what you're talking about, enjoy. However, if you mean "evolutionary theory" as in some form of scientific inquiry where the model attempts to recreate empirical reality, you can't have the three conditions without natural selection.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:01:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 4:59:48 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/5/2012 4:20:42 PM, DanT wrote:
I said a world where they are immortal because it's easier to eliminate natural selection from the equation. Again you did not answer my question, if natural selection didn't drop genes from the gene pool, would evolution still take place. You still haven't answered my question.

Say S = natural selection, and M = mutation

(M1<M2) + S = M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + S = M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) + S = M3

(M1<M2) = M1 & M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) = M1 & M2 & M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) = M1 & M2 & M3 & M4

If natural selection is taken out of the equation, you still have evolution, only more variation.

All you seem to be arguing is that one of Darwin's additions to evolutionary theory (as opposed to what he drew from Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, Malthus etc) was natural selection, and that you can refer to pre-Darwinian evolutionary theorys which deny it existing.

If you want to tell people "evolution can occur without natural selection" that's fine UNLESS you want to posit all three of the following:

1. Limited resources
2. Variation
3. Differential reproduction

If these three conditions hold, you cannot explain population genetics over time without natural selection. It might be overpowered by genetic drift if the selection pressure is small enough, but it is still present, even at the level of sex cells.

It's like saying "if genetic drift is taken out of the picture, evolution occurs."

Technically that is true. However, it's impossible to realistically model population genetics without taking genetic drift into account. You end up with a strawman definition of "evolution" which can easily be shown faulty.

Why is it you can never give a straight answer?
If its technically true than its true; don't mix words.

Evolution can technically be defined as any kind of change. Before Darwin, the term was used to talk about theories which would be considered completely incapatible with modern science. If that's what you're talking about, enjoy. However, if you mean "evolutionary theory" as in some form of scientific inquiry where the model attempts to recreate empirical reality, you can't have the three conditions without natural selection.

Extinction is not evolution; when I speak of evolution as it relates to Darwinism I speak of evolution as defined when Darwinism was drawing his conclusions.

Oxford dictionary gives the definition of evolution as , "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

That can exist without extinction
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 12:00:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 2:56:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:49:22 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Furthermore, this is science, not politics.

It overlaps

No, it only overlaps in two situations:
1. If you chose which "science" to believe based on what supports your per-concieved political ideology.
2. You attempt to use politics to over-ride the fact that science has disproved your superstitions.

If you move this to science, I'll gladly explain evolution in the context of your question (which was a good one).
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 12:58:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 10:01:45 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/5/2012 4:59:48 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/5/2012 4:20:42 PM, DanT wrote:
I said a world where they are immortal because it's easier to eliminate natural selection from the equation. Again you did not answer my question, if natural selection didn't drop genes from the gene pool, would evolution still take place. You still haven't answered my question.

Say S = natural selection, and M = mutation

(M1<M2) + S = M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + S = M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) + S = M3

(M1<M2) = M1 & M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) = M1 & M2 & M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) = M1 & M2 & M3 & M4

If natural selection is taken out of the equation, you still have evolution, only more variation.

All you seem to be arguing is that one of Darwin's additions to evolutionary theory (as opposed to what he drew from Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, Malthus etc) was natural selection, and that you can refer to pre-Darwinian evolutionary theorys which deny it existing.

If you want to tell people "evolution can occur without natural selection" that's fine UNLESS you want to posit all three of the following:

1. Limited resources
2. Variation
3. Differential reproduction

If these three conditions hold, you cannot explain population genetics over time without natural selection. It might be overpowered by genetic drift if the selection pressure is small enough, but it is still present, even at the level of sex cells.

It's like saying "if genetic drift is taken out of the picture, evolution occurs."

Technically that is true. However, it's impossible to realistically model population genetics without taking genetic drift into account. You end up with a strawman definition of "evolution" which can easily be shown faulty.

Why is it you can never give a straight answer?
If its technically true than its true; don't mix words.

Evolution can technically be defined as any kind of change. Before Darwin, the term was used to talk about theories which would be considered completely incapatible with modern science. If that's what you're talking about, enjoy. However, if you mean "evolutionary theory" as in some form of scientific inquiry where the model attempts to recreate empirical reality, you can't have the three conditions without natural selection.

Extinction is not evolution; when I speak of evolution as it relates to Darwinism I speak of evolution as defined when Darwinism was drawing his conclusions.

Oxford dictionary gives the definition of evolution as , "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

That can exist without extinction

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is inseparable from natural selection.

Evolutionary Theory as defined by, say, Lamarck or Erasmus, doesn't include natural selection. You are talking about them, not Darwin or any derivative of Darwin's work.

Natural selection is not extinction by definition, because extinction means no differential reproduction. Reproduction without natural selection, however, guarantees extinction in all but the most fanciful worlds (immortality, zero selection pressures, etc).

As I said, if you please, you can say "I am defining Evolutionary Theory in a non-Darwinian way."

Most people would say you are stretching things, but semantically you're in the clear.

If natural selection did not occur, finches Darwin witnessed would die much more quickly because the frequency of mutations in each generation would not be effected by differential reproduction (or else it's natural selection).

Thing is, THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE unless Darwin witnessed immortal birds.

Say there are nuts A, B, and C, all of which take a specific shaped beak to open( beak a, beak b, beak c). Every generation of finches would have the same spread of beaks from beak a to beak z.

All finches whose mutations were beaks d to z would die.

Let's say that the most common mutation is beak a, and the island runs out of A nuts. In the few generations, all A birds and D-Z die.

How can you possible describe generations of finches without natural selection (what you call "extinction")?

To repeat, natural selection will occur, regardless of your feelings, as long as the three conditions apply. So far, all you've presented as a rebuttal is that natural selection is irrelevant if animals are immortal.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 2:04:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 12:00:06 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:56:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:49:22 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Furthermore, this is science, not politics.

It overlaps

No, it only overlaps in two situations:
1. If you chose which "science" to believe based on what supports your per-concieved political ideology.
2. You attempt to use politics to over-ride the fact that science has disproved your superstitions.

If you move this to science, I'll gladly explain evolution in the context of your question (which was a good one).

It overlaps because of the history of the issue.
Evolution =/= Darwinism, but many people thinks it does, due to politics.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 2:18:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 12:58:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:01:45 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/5/2012 4:59:48 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/5/2012 4:20:42 PM, DanT wrote:
I said a world where they are immortal because it's easier to eliminate natural selection from the equation. Again you did not answer my question, if natural selection didn't drop genes from the gene pool, would evolution still take place. You still haven't answered my question.

Say S = natural selection, and M = mutation

(M1<M2) + S = M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + S = M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) + S = M3

(M1<M2) = M1 & M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) = M1 & M2 & M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) = M1 & M2 & M3 & M4

If natural selection is taken out of the equation, you still have evolution, only more variation.

All you seem to be arguing is that one of Darwin's additions to evolutionary theory (as opposed to what he drew from Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, Malthus etc) was natural selection, and that you can refer to pre-Darwinian evolutionary theorys which deny it existing.

If you want to tell people "evolution can occur without natural selection" that's fine UNLESS you want to posit all three of the following:

1. Limited resources
2. Variation
3. Differential reproduction

If these three conditions hold, you cannot explain population genetics over time without natural selection. It might be overpowered by genetic drift if the selection pressure is small enough, but it is still present, even at the level of sex cells.

It's like saying "if genetic drift is taken out of the picture, evolution occurs."

Technically that is true. However, it's impossible to realistically model population genetics without taking genetic drift into account. You end up with a strawman definition of "evolution" which can easily be shown faulty.

Why is it you can never give a straight answer?
If its technically true than its true; don't mix words.

Evolution can technically be defined as any kind of change. Before Darwin, the term was used to talk about theories which would be considered completely incapatible with modern science. If that's what you're talking about, enjoy. However, if you mean "evolutionary theory" as in some form of scientific inquiry where the model attempts to recreate empirical reality, you can't have the three conditions without natural selection.

Extinction is not evolution; when I speak of evolution as it relates to Darwinism I speak of evolution as defined when Darwinism was drawing his conclusions.

Oxford dictionary gives the definition of evolution as , "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

That can exist without extinction

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is inseparable from natural selection.

Where did I ever claim Darwinism =/= natural selection? I've been arguing Darwinism is Natural Selection, and thus it's more so a theory of extinction than evolution.

Evolutionary Theory as defined by, say, Lamarck or Erasmus, doesn't include natural selection. You are talking about them, not Darwin or any derivative of Darwin's work.

I'm talking about Darwinism, not Darwinism. Your responses does not reflect what you are responding to. Why are you so evasive?

Natural selection is not extinction by definition, because extinction means no differential reproduction. Reproduction without natural selection, however, guarantees extinction in all but the most fanciful worlds (immortality, zero selection pressures, etc).

Natural Selection is a theory of extinction, because it deals with extinction.

As I said, if you please, you can say "I am defining Evolutionary Theory in a non-Darwinian way."

Why are you always using quotes for something I never said?

Most people would say you are stretching things, but semantically you're in the clear.


Your the one stretching things.

If natural selection did not occur, finches Darwin witnessed would die much more quickly because the frequency of mutations in each generation would not be effected by differential reproduction (or else it's natural selection).

Never said natural selection doesn't occur I said Evolution does not rely on Natural Selection.

Thing is, THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE unless Darwin witnessed immortal birds.

which is why I asked the hypothetical question to rule out darwinism.

Say there are nuts A, B, and C, all of which take a specific shaped beak to open( beak a, beak b, beak c). Every generation of finches would have the same spread of beaks from beak a to beak z.

All finches whose mutations were beaks d to z would die.

Let's say that the most common mutation is beak a, and the island runs out of A nuts. In the few generations, all A birds and D-Z die.

How can you possible describe generations of finches without natural selection (what you call "extinction")?


Not talking about generations, I'm talking about mutations. If Natural selection did not occur, mutations would still take place, and the world would be more diverse, and would still have evolution.

To repeat, natural selection will occur, regardless of your feelings, as long as the three conditions apply. So far, all you've presented as a rebuttal is that natural selection is irrelevant if animals are immortal.

Never claimed Natural selection wouldn't take place. I'm saying natural selection is not a evolutionary theory, it's a extinction theory; again you missed my point entirely.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 2:51:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 2:18:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/6/2012 12:58:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:01:45 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/5/2012 4:59:48 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/5/2012 4:20:42 PM, DanT wrote:
I said a world where they are immortal because it's easier to eliminate natural selection from the equation. Again you did not answer my question, if natural selection didn't drop genes from the gene pool, would evolution still take place. You still haven't answered my question.

Say S = natural selection, and M = mutation

(M1<M2) + S = M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + S = M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) + S = M3

(M1<M2) = M1 & M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) = M1 & M2 & M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) = M1 & M2 & M3 & M4

If natural selection is taken out of the equation, you still have evolution, only more variation.

All you seem to be arguing is that one of Darwin's additions to evolutionary theory (as opposed to what he drew from Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, Malthus etc) was natural selection, and that you can refer to pre-Darwinian evolutionary theorys which deny it existing.

If you want to tell people "evolution can occur without natural selection" that's fine UNLESS you want to posit all three of the following:

1. Limited resources
2. Variation
3. Differential reproduction

If these three conditions hold, you cannot explain population genetics over time without natural selection. It might be overpowered by genetic drift if the selection pressure is small enough, but it is still present, even at the level of sex cells.

It's like saying "if genetic drift is taken out of the picture, evolution occurs."

Technically that is true. However, it's impossible to realistically model population genetics without taking genetic drift into account. You end up with a strawman definition of "evolution" which can easily be shown faulty.

Why is it you can never give a straight answer?
If its technically true than its true; don't mix words.

Evolution can technically be defined as any kind of change. Before Darwin, the term was used to talk about theories which would be considered completely incapatible with modern science. If that's what you're talking about, enjoy. However, if you mean "evolutionary theory" as in some form of scientific inquiry where the model attempts to recreate empirical reality, you can't have the three conditions without natural selection.

Extinction is not evolution; when I speak of evolution as it relates to Darwinism I speak of evolution as defined when Darwinism was drawing his conclusions.

Oxford dictionary gives the definition of evolution as , "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

That can exist without extinction

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is inseparable from natural selection.

Where did I ever claim Darwinism =/= natural selection? I've been arguing Darwinism is Natural Selection, and thus it's more so a theory of extinction than evolution.

Evolutionary Theory as defined by, say, Lamarck or Erasmus, doesn't include natural selection. You are talking about them, not Darwin or any derivative of Darwin's work.

I'm talking about Darwinism, not Darwinism. Your responses does not reflect what you are responding to. Why are you so evasive?

Natural selection is not extinction by definition, because extinction means no differential reproduction. Reproduction without natural selection, however, guarantees extinction in all but the most fanciful worlds (immortality, zero selection pressures, etc).

Natural Selection is a theory of extinction, because it deals with extinction.

As I said, if you please, you can say "I am defining Evolutionary Theory in a non-Darwinian way."

Why are you always using quotes for something I never said?

Most people would say you are stretching things, but semantically you're in the clear.


Your the one stretching things.

If natural selection did not occur, finches Darwin witnessed would die much more quickly because the frequency of mutations in each generation would not be effected by differential reproduction (or else it's natural selection).

Never said natural selection doesn't occur I said Evolution does not rely on Natural Selection.

Thing is, THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE unless Darwin witnessed immortal birds.

which is why I asked the hypothetical question to rule out darwinism.

Say there are nuts A, B, and C, all of which take a specific shaped beak to open( beak a, beak b, beak c). Every generation of finches would have the same spread of beaks from beak a to beak z.

All finches whose mutations were beaks d to z would die.

Let's say that the most common mutation is beak a, and the island runs out of A nuts. In the few generations, all A birds and D-Z die.

How can you possible describe generations of finches without natural selection (what you call "extinction")?


Not talking about generations, I'm talking about mutations. If Natural selection did not occur, mutations would still take place, and the world would be more diverse, and would still have evolution.

To repeat, natural selection will occur, regardless of your feelings, as long as the three conditions apply. So far, all you've presented as a rebuttal is that natural selection is irrelevant if animals are immortal.

Never claimed Natural selection wouldn't take place. I'm saying natural selection is not a evolutionary theory, it's a extinction theory; again you missed my point entirely.

"I'm talking about Darwinism, not Darwinism."

What's the difference between Darwinism and Darwinism?

Natural selection is no more a theory of extinction than sexual selection or genetic drift or artificial selection or neutral selection.

Natural selection describes the patterns which influence whether animals live or die.

Evolution studies change over generations. When you allow for death, then natural selection becomes part of evolution.

If you want to talk about Evolutionary Theory without natural selection, you are describing either a fantasy or a pre-Darwinian version of Evolutionary Theory.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 3:23:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 2:56:33 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:48:16 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:42:48 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:35:48 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Natural selection does not create new genes, mutation does. " Mutation + selection = diversification " is the basic equation for evolution.

Never claimed it did.
Furthermore, mutation = diversification, and selection = extinction.

If Mutation = m, and selection = s than m<s = a decrease in diversity, and m>s = a increase in diversity.

M & S work so that if M1 is better than M, then M1 continues onwards, then if M2 is better than M1, M2 continues onwards, and if M3 is worse than M2, then M2 continues onwards, etc. etc.

S is just the process.

S is not the process of evolution, M is. S is the process whereby the weaker link goes extinct.

If M is worse than M1, then M goes extinct due to S, then if M1 is worse than M2, M1 goes extinct due to S, and if M2 is better than M1, then M2, because M3 went extinct due to S.

By looking at your example, you're using S as the process.

If something is "due to X" then that is the process. If A man does better than a boy at a test due to the wording, then how the question is worded is the process.

But in no way is M2 a process. M would be, following previous example, a man, and M1 would be a boy. Neither are progresses by any stretch.

Other than this, are there any other problems?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 4:03:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 3:23:14 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:56:33 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:48:16 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:42:48 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:35:48 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Natural selection does not create new genes, mutation does. " Mutation + selection = diversification " is the basic equation for evolution.

Never claimed it did.
Furthermore, mutation = diversification, and selection = extinction.

If Mutation = m, and selection = s than m<s = a decrease in diversity, and m>s = a increase in diversity.

M & S work so that if M1 is better than M, then M1 continues onwards, then if M2 is better than M1, M2 continues onwards, and if M3 is worse than M2, then M2 continues onwards, etc. etc.

S is just the process.

S is not the process of evolution, M is. S is the process whereby the weaker link goes extinct.

If M is worse than M1, then M goes extinct due to S, then if M1 is worse than M2, M1 goes extinct due to S, and if M2 is better than M1, then M2, because M3 went extinct due to S.

By looking at your example, you're using S as the process.

If something is "due to X" then that is the process. If A man does better than a boy at a test due to the wording, then how the question is worded is the process.

But in no way is M2 a process. M would be, following previous example, a man, and M1 would be a boy. Neither are progresses by any stretch.

Other than this, are there any other problems?

never said S wasn't a process, I said it wasn't the process of evolution. Why is it you people always turn what I say into something else?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 4:04:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 2:51:38 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/6/2012 2:18:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/6/2012 12:58:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:01:45 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/5/2012 4:59:48 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/5/2012 4:20:42 PM, DanT wrote:
I said a world where they are immortal because it's easier to eliminate natural selection from the equation. Again you did not answer my question, if natural selection didn't drop genes from the gene pool, would evolution still take place. You still haven't answered my question.

Say S = natural selection, and M = mutation

(M1<M2) + S = M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + S = M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) + S = M3

(M1<M2) = M1 & M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) = M1 & M2 & M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) = M1 & M2 & M3 & M4

If natural selection is taken out of the equation, you still have evolution, only more variation.

All you seem to be arguing is that one of Darwin's additions to evolutionary theory (as opposed to what he drew from Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, Malthus etc) was natural selection, and that you can refer to pre-Darwinian evolutionary theorys which deny it existing.

If you want to tell people "evolution can occur without natural selection" that's fine UNLESS you want to posit all three of the following:

1. Limited resources
2. Variation
3. Differential reproduction

If these three conditions hold, you cannot explain population genetics over time without natural selection. It might be overpowered by genetic drift if the selection pressure is small enough, but it is still present, even at the level of sex cells.

It's like saying "if genetic drift is taken out of the picture, evolution occurs."

Technically that is true. However, it's impossible to realistically model population genetics without taking genetic drift into account. You end up with a strawman definition of "evolution" which can easily be shown faulty.

Why is it you can never give a straight answer?
If its technically true than its true; don't mix words.

Evolution can technically be defined as any kind of change. Before Darwin, the term was used to talk about theories which would be considered completely incapatible with modern science. If that's what you're talking about, enjoy. However, if you mean "evolutionary theory" as in some form of scientific inquiry where the model attempts to recreate empirical reality, you can't have the three conditions without natural selection.

Extinction is not evolution; when I speak of evolution as it relates to Darwinism I speak of evolution as defined when Darwinism was drawing his conclusions.

Oxford dictionary gives the definition of evolution as , "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

That can exist without extinction

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is inseparable from natural selection.

Where did I ever claim Darwinism =/= natural selection? I've been arguing Darwinism is Natural Selection, and thus it's more so a theory of extinction than evolution.

Evolutionary Theory as defined by, say, Lamarck or Erasmus, doesn't include natural selection. You are talking about them, not Darwin or any derivative of Darwin's work.

I'm talking about Darwinism, not Darwinism. Your responses does not reflect what you are responding to. Why are you so evasive?

Natural selection is not extinction by definition, because extinction means no differential reproduction. Reproduction without natural selection, however, guarantees extinction in all but the most fanciful worlds (immortality, zero selection pressures, etc).

Natural Selection is a theory of extinction, because it deals with extinction.

As I said, if you please, you can say "I am defining Evolutionary Theory in a non-Darwinian way."

Why are you always using quotes for something I never said?

Most people would say you are stretching things, but semantically you're in the clear.


Your the one stretching things.

If natural selection did not occur, finches Darwin witnessed would die much more quickly because the frequency of mutations in each generation would not be effected by differential reproduction (or else it's natural selection).

Never said natural selection doesn't occur I said Evolution does not rely on Natural Selection.

Thing is, THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE unless Darwin witnessed immortal birds.

which is why I asked the hypothetical question to rule out darwinism.

Say there are nuts A, B, and C, all of which take a specific shaped beak to open( beak a, beak b, beak c). Every generation of finches would have the same spread of beaks from beak a to beak z.

All finches whose mutations were beaks d to z would die.

Let's say that the most common mutation is beak a, and the island runs out of A nuts. In the few generations, all A birds and D-Z die.

How can you possible describe generations of finches without natural selection (what you call "extinction")?


Not talking about generations, I'm talking about mutations. If Natural selection did not occur, mutations would still take place, and the world would be more diverse, and would still have evolution.

To repeat, natural selection will occur, regardless of your feelings, as long as the three conditions apply. So far, all you've presented as a rebuttal is that natural selection is irrelevant if animals are immortal.

Never claimed Natural selection wouldn't take place. I'm saying natural selection is not a evolutionary theory, it's a extinction theory; again you missed my point entirely.

"I'm talking about Darwinism, not Darwinism."

What's the difference between Darwinism and Darwinism?

Natural selection is no more a theory of extinction than sexual selection or genetic drift or artificial selection or neutral selection.

Natural selection describes the patterns which influence whether animals live or die.

Evolution studies change over generations. When you allow for death, then natural selection becomes part of evolution.

If you want to talk about Evolutionary Theory without natural selection, you are describing either a fantasy or a pre-Darwinian version of Evolutionary Theory.

I typed neodarwinism but my iphone changed it to darwinism
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 5:20:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 4:04:58 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/6/2012 2:51:38 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/6/2012 2:18:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/6/2012 12:58:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:01:45 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/5/2012 4:59:48 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/5/2012 4:20:42 PM, DanT wrote:
I said a world where they are immortal because it's easier to eliminate natural selection from the equation. Again you did not answer my question, if natural selection didn't drop genes from the gene pool, would evolution still take place. You still haven't answered my question.

Say S = natural selection, and M = mutation

(M1<M2) + S = M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + S = M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) + S = M3

(M1<M2) = M1 & M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) = M1 & M2 & M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) = M1 & M2 & M3 & M4

If natural selection is taken out of the equation, you still have evolution, only more variation.

All you seem to be arguing is that one of Darwin's additions to evolutionary theory (as opposed to what he drew from Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, Malthus etc) was natural selection, and that you can refer to pre-Darwinian evolutionary theorys which deny it existing.

If you want to tell people "evolution can occur without natural selection" that's fine UNLESS you want to posit all three of the following:

1. Limited resources
2. Variation
3. Differential reproduction

If these three conditions hold, you cannot explain population genetics over time without natural selection. It might be overpowered by genetic drift if the selection pressure is small enough, but it is still present, even at the level of sex cells.

It's like saying "if genetic drift is taken out of the picture, evolution occurs."

Technically that is true. However, it's impossible to realistically model population genetics without taking genetic drift into account. You end up with a strawman definition of "evolution" which can easily be shown faulty.

Why is it you can never give a straight answer?
If its technically true than its true; don't mix words.

Evolution can technically be defined as any kind of change. Before Darwin, the term was used to talk about theories which would be considered completely incapatible with modern science. If that's what you're talking about, enjoy. However, if you mean "evolutionary theory" as in some form of scientific inquiry where the model attempts to recreate empirical reality, you can't have the three conditions without natural selection.

Extinction is not evolution; when I speak of evolution as it relates to Darwinism I speak of evolution as defined when Darwinism was drawing his conclusions.

Oxford dictionary gives the definition of evolution as , "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

That can exist without extinction

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is inseparable from natural selection.

Where did I ever claim Darwinism =/= natural selection? I've been arguing Darwinism is Natural Selection, and thus it's more so a theory of extinction than evolution.

Evolutionary Theory as defined by, say, Lamarck or Erasmus, doesn't include natural selection. You are talking about them, not Darwin or any derivative of Darwin's work.

I'm talking about Darwinism, not Darwinism. Your responses does not reflect what you are responding to. Why are you so evasive?

Natural selection is not extinction by definition, because extinction means no differential reproduction. Reproduction without natural selection, however, guarantees extinction in all but the most fanciful worlds (immortality, zero selection pressures, etc).

Natural Selection is a theory of extinction, because it deals with extinction.

As I said, if you please, you can say "I am defining Evolutionary Theory in a non-Darwinian way."

Why are you always using quotes for something I never said?

Most people would say you are stretching things, but semantically you're in the clear.


Your the one stretching things.

If natural selection did not occur, finches Darwin witnessed would die much more quickly because the frequency of mutations in each generation would not be effected by differential reproduction (or else it's natural selection).

Never said natural selection doesn't occur I said Evolution does not rely on Natural Selection.

Thing is, THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE unless Darwin witnessed immortal birds.

which is why I asked the hypothetical question to rule out darwinism.

Say there are nuts A, B, and C, all of which take a specific shaped beak to open( beak a, beak b, beak c). Every generation of finches would have the same spread of beaks from beak a to beak z.

All finches whose mutations were beaks d to z would die.

Let's say that the most common mutation is beak a, and the island runs out of A nuts. In the few generations, all A birds and D-Z die.

How can you possible describe generations of finches without natural selection (what you call "extinction")?


Not talking about generations, I'm talking about mutations. If Natural selection did not occur, mutations would still take place, and the world would be more diverse, and would still have evolution.

To repeat, natural selection will occur, regardless of your feelings, as long as the three conditions apply. So far, all you've presented as a rebuttal is that natural selection is irrelevant if animals are immortal.

Never claimed Natural selection wouldn't take place. I'm saying natural selection is not a evolutionary theory, it's a extinction theory; again you missed my point entirely.

"I'm talking about Darwinism, not Darwinism."

What's the difference between Darwinism and Darwinism?

Natural selection is no more a theory of extinction than sexual selection or genetic drift or artificial selection or neutral selection.

Natural selection describes the patterns which influence whether animals live or die.

Evolution studies change over generations. When you allow for death, then natural selection becomes part of evolution.

If you want to talk about Evolutionary Theory without natural selection, you are describing either a fantasy or a pre-Darwinian version of Evolutionary Theory.

I typed neodarwinism but my iphone changed it to darwinism

Autocorrect never fails to amaze me.

Which Darwinism did you mean to be neodarwinism?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 5:39:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 5:20:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/6/2012 4:04:58 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/6/2012 2:51:38 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/6/2012 2:18:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/6/2012 12:58:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:01:45 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/5/2012 4:59:48 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/5/2012 4:20:42 PM, DanT wrote:
I said a world where they are immortal because it's easier to eliminate natural selection from the equation. Again you did not answer my question, if natural selection didn't drop genes from the gene pool, would evolution still take place. You still haven't answered my question.

Say S = natural selection, and M = mutation

(M1<M2) + S = M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + S = M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) + S = M3

(M1<M2) = M1 & M2
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) = M1 & M2 & M3
(M1<M2) + (M2<M3) + (M3>M4) = M1 & M2 & M3 & M4

If natural selection is taken out of the equation, you still have evolution, only more variation.

All you seem to be arguing is that one of Darwin's additions to evolutionary theory (as opposed to what he drew from Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, Malthus etc) was natural selection, and that you can refer to pre-Darwinian evolutionary theorys which deny it existing.

If you want to tell people "evolution can occur without natural selection" that's fine UNLESS you want to posit all three of the following:

1. Limited resources
2. Variation
3. Differential reproduction

If these three conditions hold, you cannot explain population genetics over time without natural selection. It might be overpowered by genetic drift if the selection pressure is small enough, but it is still present, even at the level of sex cells.

It's like saying "if genetic drift is taken out of the picture, evolution occurs."

Technically that is true. However, it's impossible to realistically model population genetics without taking genetic drift into account. You end up with a strawman definition of "evolution" which can easily be shown faulty.

Why is it you can never give a straight answer?
If its technically true than its true; don't mix words.

Evolution can technically be defined as any kind of change. Before Darwin, the term was used to talk about theories which would be considered completely incapatible with modern science. If that's what you're talking about, enjoy. However, if you mean "evolutionary theory" as in some form of scientific inquiry where the model attempts to recreate empirical reality, you can't have the three conditions without natural selection.

Extinction is not evolution; when I speak of evolution as it relates to Darwinism I speak of evolution as defined when Darwinism was drawing his conclusions.

Oxford dictionary gives the definition of evolution as , "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

That can exist without extinction

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is inseparable from natural selection.

Where did I ever claim Darwinism =/= natural selection? I've been arguing Darwinism is Natural Selection, and thus it's more so a theory of extinction than evolution.

Evolutionary Theory as defined by, say, Lamarck or Erasmus, doesn't include natural selection. You are talking about them, not Darwin or any derivative of Darwin's work.

I'm talking about Darwinism, not Darwinism. Your responses does not reflect what you are responding to. Why are you so evasive?

Natural selection is not extinction by definition, because extinction means no differential reproduction. Reproduction without natural selection, however, guarantees extinction in all but the most fanciful worlds (immortality, zero selection pressures, etc).

Natural Selection is a theory of extinction, because it deals with extinction.

As I said, if you please, you can say "I am defining Evolutionary Theory in a non-Darwinian way."

Why are you always using quotes for something I never said?

Most people would say you are stretching things, but semantically you're in the clear.


Your the one stretching things.

If natural selection did not occur, finches Darwin witnessed would die much more quickly because the frequency of mutations in each generation would not be effected by differential reproduction (or else it's natural selection).

Never said natural selection doesn't occur I said Evolution does not rely on Natural Selection.

Thing is, THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE unless Darwin witnessed immortal birds.

which is why I asked the hypothetical question to rule out darwinism.

Say there are nuts A, B, and C, all of which take a specific shaped beak to open( beak a, beak b, beak c). Every generation of finches would have the same spread of beaks from beak a to beak z.

All finches whose mutations were beaks d to z would die.

Let's say that the most common mutation is beak a, and the island runs out of A nuts. In the few generations, all A birds and D-Z die.

How can you possible describe generations of finches without natural selection (what you call "extinction")?


Not talking about generations, I'm talking about mutations. If Natural selection did not occur, mutations would still take place, and the world would be more diverse, and would still have evolution.

To repeat, natural selection will occur, regardless of your feelings, as long as the three conditions apply. So far, all you've presented as a rebuttal is that natural selection is irrelevant if animals are immortal.

Never claimed Natural selection wouldn't take place. I'm saying natural selection is not a evolutionary theory, it's a extinction theory; again you missed my point entirely.

"I'm talking about Darwinism, not Darwinism."

What's the difference between Darwinism and Darwinism?

Natural selection is no more a theory of extinction than sexual selection or genetic drift or artificial selection or neutral selection.

Natural selection describes the patterns which influence whether animals live or die.

Evolution studies change over generations. When you allow for death, then natural selection becomes part of evolution.

If you want to talk about Evolutionary Theory without natural selection, you are describing either a fantasy or a pre-Darwinian version of Evolutionary Theory.

I typed neodarwinism but my iphone changed it to darwinism

Autocorrect never fails to amaze me.

Which Darwinism did you mean to be neodarwinism?

No darwinism. Darwin's original theorizes; not the modern take.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle