|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If Newton was a Darwinist | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
from:: Evolution: Glossary
"evolution: Darwin defined this term as "descent with modification." It is the change in a lineage of populations between generations. In general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which new species develop from preexisting species over time; in genetic terms, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation." Notice the stress on populations. You may believe that mutation alone is evolution, that doesn'tmake you right. Find some support for your definition, and post it. It's not playing with definitions, it is the theory ofevolution ... that's what it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
My support is the reasoning I gave before. By your wordusage you would / could have different species, where one descended from the other, but you would not say the one had evolved from the other. You would then say that the one has mutated from the other apparently, but not evolved.
When, as per my example, a mutant reproduces, then you have an organism different then it's ancestor, and the new trait contributes to reproduction (in real terms, not relative terms), and that is what I understand to be evolution, mainly. So I would include in evolution, mutants that split of from their ancestorpopulation into a different environment through use of their mutation, while you apparently wouldn't. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: No the above is a reasonable description of evolution. One species is descended from another, the differences accruedthrough mutations that get fixed in the population (species in this case). quote: No, that is mutation. If there is a sufficient benefit to the mutation such that themutant has more surviving offspring than the non-mutant, and this trend continues such that the mutant trait becomes the populational norm ... then that is evolution. quote: No I would include that too. I think I'm missing your pointsomewhere. If, by virtue of a mutation, an organism has a net survivalbenefit wrt to its siblings it stands a better chance of passing on its traits. If favourable conditions persist, it's offspring will likewise fare better, and the trait frequency within the population will change. You cannot get away from populations wrt evolution. One organism, alone, that is a mutant offspring is not evolution,it is a 'freak'. A whole population of organisms bearing a trait inhereted froma 'freak', however that trait becomes fixed, is evolution to me. It's all about trait frequency of populations. [This message has been edited by Peter, 09-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Again, a mutation, as I argue, theoretically can split a population in 2, each population (the new population that does have the mutation, and the ancestral population that doesn't) inhabiting a separate environment to which they are adapted to reproduce. Where are you then with your insistence on populational traitfrequency for evolution when you have separate populations?
The evolution of the eye is all about trait frequencies in populations? And ears too, and hair, and whatnot? The evolution of the eye is about how the eye as a new trait contributes to reproduction. It does so by receiving light etc. etc. Again, in evolution we are essentially looking at individual qualities, not population qualities. I think you are putting up trait frequency as an alternative to reproduction, just as you did before with survival. I've read this also in more standard literature, to describe units of selection in terms of contributing to trait frequency, in stead of survival, or reproduction. Needless to say I think these alternatives to reproduction are deceptive. All organisms eventually die, only through continuous reproduction are there any organisms left in the world. That is the special function of reproduction. Besides if you have a glass of water and put in some colouring liquid which would gradually color the water, would you also call this evolution of water from colorless to color? Your meaning of evolution is too vague, it would largely also apply to coloring water and other things. Coloring water is what I imagine when you talk about populational traitfrequencies. But reproduction does not apply to coloring water at all, reproduction makes biological evolution clearly distinct. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: It's not a population until there are more than one of eachtrait-bearing organism. This means that it is not the mutation that equates to evolution,but the continuation of that new trait within the population. If, for whatever reason, the population is divided such that inone environment the new trait is 'better' while in another the original trait is 'better' ... that's natural selection driving evolution toward two separate species. The point of a single mutation within a population is notevolution. The change in the make-up of the population is.
quote: Yes.
quote: No. The evolution of the eye is about improved chances ofsurvival in some enviornments. quote: That's exactly why organisms are not the correct level tolook at evolution at. Organisms do not evolve. Species evolve. Evolution of a species means 'what is the norm for that specie ata particular point in time?' 1:1,000,000 bearing a 'new' trait is not evolution of the species. 750,000:1,000,000 bearing a 'new' trait is. Darwin's work that started this is called 'The Origin of Species'and is, from the outset, aimed at describing changes in populations. To explain this, yes, we need to look at how offspring can differfrom parents ... that does not make that the sole subject matter of evolution. quote: The motion of the dye within the liquid is more-or-less how I imaginethe change in a population over time, due to a selected-for trait. In the liquid (an analogy) it is not evolution. Evolution (in the context here) applies only to biological systems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
You are not answering my question, the populations are separate in my example. It's doubtful that a change in traitfrequency, or the fixation of a trait in a population, can be meaningfully called evolution (because it doesn't mention modification), it is even less doubtfull that simple populationgrowth of a uniform population can meaningfully be called evolution (this is what happens in my example since the populations are separate). So then this case of evolution falls outside your definition of evolution, simply because you insist on populations. And again, while it may (or may not) be unlikely that a population splits in 2 through a mutation, the case shows that your definition is lacking generally. It will be more likely to occur that variants *within* a population use different sorts of resources according to their different heritable qualities, and your view of that by your definition is deceptive.
Again, if an organism is different then it's ancestor, and the difference normally contributes to reproduction, then that is the more meaningful definition of evolution, and also inclusive of my scenario of a mutation splitting a population apart. When a mutation doesn't contribute to reproduction or makes the chance of reproduction less, then I guess that is still evolution, although a less meaningful definition of it. It is just descent with modification. Again..., strange that the fossilrecord is full of dead organisms with eyes, since you say that eyes contribute to survival. How come they are all dead then? Again,.... I think this discussion is finished. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: So you are looking at the evolution of two separate speciesfrom a common ancestor. quote: What do you call a change in trait frequency if not a'modification' ? If traits change, hasn't the population been modified ?
quote: With no change there is no evolution ... your point is ...?
quote: The evolution (if you can phrase it that way) happened at thesplit, after that is equilibrium ... that's pretty much a standard defintion of evolution as far as I can see. quote: Lacking what? A single organism (outside single-celled creatures) is anunlikely (to say the least) candidate for the 'founder' of a new species, just as the liklihood of a single mutation causeing such difference that the offspring would be considered a new species. Evolution is an accumulation of gradual change, not suddenprofound changes in a single generation. quote: Or they may use the same resources more efficiently. What is deceptive in my view ... that's what I say NS is allabout. quote: No, it leads to evolution.
quote: A single mutation doing this in multi-celled organisms isunlikely, but would be considered ONE route to evolution as I understand it. quote: If a mutation doesn't contribute to survival (or reproduction for you)then why will it become a permanent feature of the species. Mutations do not happen to ALL individuals within the population and breeding will mask and or illiminate some. If the effect is to make one less-fit then that means that thenon-mutant is more fit .... NS again. quote: It also contains many without 'eyes'. All animals die ... contribution to survival does not meanimoortality. quote: I think you don't really understand the conceptof evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
You use a definition of evolution which is vague on 6 points,
- gradualness (this probably refers to a small number of genetic mutations, but then small genetic changes can have large effects, and besides changes are discrete, specific molecules are made through specific genetic changes, gradualness doesn't cover this), - modification (I doubt modification is understood to be shifts in traitsfrequencies by evolutionists), and - how big a traitfrequency there should be when you start calling it evolution, and - when you start calling something a species, and - your description of traits in terms of their contribution to survival, or contribution to traitfrequency apart from describing them in terms of reproduction. Again, you can't cover mutants splitting of from their ancestorpopulation with changes in traitfrequencies in populations. As predicted, you just gloss over the fact that your definition doesn't cover this case of evolution, which doesn't matter much since your definition is already vague on many other points. Your assertion that NS is all about increased effeciency also fits in with that vagueness. Strictly speaking it's simply false, but then you have obviously thrown away exactitude as a scientific standard already when you wrote that. I prefer the exactness of my definitions, and the simplicity, and power of logic of a general theory of reproduction on which it is based. It also covers lots more then NS, most all possible types of scenario's of evolution are instantly obvious by it, and more besides, since it also applies to uniform populations in changing environments for instance. Environmentalists especially should use a general theory of reproduction, as should people in zoo's and such. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: No it refers to small changes from one generation to another. As I understand it, ToE says that differences between speciesare the result of an accumulation of gradul change over time. It does not discount occasional sudden changes, but it is notchange alone that drive evolution, rather it is change + selection. quote: Modification means small changes. Modification is not evolution. Evolution is descent with modification.
quote: If the trait frequency of generation 1 is different from generation0 then it is evolution. ANY change in trait frequency is evolution.
quote: When it is reproductively isolated from an ancestral population.
quote: How do eyes contribute to reproduction?
quote: ToE does cover that case, it is currently considered to beextremely rare. In sexually reproducing organisms this is highly unlikely. One mutant male will have to breed with the non-mutant females,and so remains a part of the population it was born into. Even with single celled organisms, the mutant, unless it movesaway, remains within the population into which it was born. We've talked about environment before ... you seem to be of theopinion that if I only eat apples and you only eat pears we are in different environments even if we are stood next to one another ... I would view that as the same environment, and so would ecologists. quote: There is nothing complex about ToE.ToE is logical. ToE is not vague, if you look stuff up you'll find the answers ... whether you like them or not is not my concern. Your general theory of reproduction is not vague?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: No it refers to small changes from one generation to another. As I understand it, ToE says that differences between speciesare the result of an accumulation of gradul change over time. It does not discount occasional sudden changes, but it is notchange alone that drive evolution, rather it is change + selection. quote: Modification means small changes. Modification is not evolution. Evolution is descent with modification.
quote: If the trait frequency of generation 1 is different from generation0 then it is evolution. ANY change in trait frequency is evolution.
quote: When it is reproductively isolated from an ancestral population.
quote: How do eyes contribute to reproduction?
quote: ToE does cover that case, it is currently considered to beextremely rare. In sexually reproducing organisms this is highly unlikely. One mutant male will have to breed with the non-mutant females,and so remains a part of the population it was born into. Even with single celled organisms, the mutant, unless it movesaway, remains within the population into which it was born. We've talked about environment before ... you seem to be of theopinion that if I only eat apples and you only eat pears we are in different environments even if we are stood next to one another ... I would view that as the same environment, and so would ecologists. quote: There is nothing complex about ToE.ToE is logical. ToE is not vague, if you look stuff up you'll find the answers ... whether you like them or not is not my concern. Your general theory of reproduction is not vague?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024