I'm not sure just what it is that you say that "the ToE" says. I was responding to your claim that "natural selection" can, [and presumably, does],account for fluctuations in the amount of biodiversity, both positive and negative, in not only circumscribed localities/ecosystems, but even in the biosphere as a whole, and in both the long and short term. As per your affirmative response to my question.
In short, you are saying that 'natural selection' causes fluctuations in biodiversity, (both increases and decreases), and not just locally, but globally, as well.
That's quite a sweeping claim, and all I've asked you to do is to back that claim with empirical evidence, and sound reasoning from that evidence.
We were talking about the theory of evolution, not only the mechanism of natural selection. The theory of evolution can be stated simple as the theory that evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it in the present, in history, in the fossil record and as we know it in the genetic record.
That may seem like a sweeping claim, but that is what science does: science makes sweeping claims all the time -- it tries to understand the universe, after all.
The empirical evidence is all those facts we know about the diversity of life - life as we know it in the present, in history, in the fossil record and as we know it in the genetic record.
The sound reasoning based on that evidence is the whole field of biological science, including evolutionary biology. Natural selection is one of the mechanisms that is studied in this process.
Now, I simply do not see how you can do that without clearly defining 'natural selection' as a causal agency, a natural (i.e., empirical) force, similar to gravity, etc., a physical, universal, scientific, discernible and describable mechanism.
Fortunately nature is not limited by your understanding.
Not as an observed empirical effect of some other cause, force, mechanism or assortment of mechanisms and/or unrelated events, nor as a catch-all metaphor for such indescriminate, indeterminate unknowns. Most importantly, I would like to hear how it can be that such a force, cause, universal mechanism can _increase_ biodiversity, rather than just decrease or stabilize it.
By selecting for increased hereditary variation and speciation. Mutation introduces new alleles, hereditary traits, into populations. This is increased biodiversity. Natural selection can select for these to be spread into the population, or it can select to suppress them. Mixing allele between subpopulations means more mixed traits, more diversity, than existed in either subpopulation alone.
From what I know of 'natural selection', it simply cannot increase biodiversity; Fisher's "random, genetic mutation" is supposed, by neo-darwinists, to be the cause, force, mechanism that does that job. Except that 'random accident', "chance", "luck", "coincidence", "happenstance", being irregular and unpredictable, can never be called, nor called upon to replace, a 'force' or a 'mechanism', in terms applicable to scientific explanation for observed phenomena. Such as evolution and increased biological variation and complexity [biodiversity].
Fortunately nature is not limited by your understanding.
According to the ToE, if the environment is favorable for a trait,
that trait will become more prominent.
That is not a theory; that is a tautological statement of a brute fact, a truism. It's no more scientific than the observation that rain tends to fall from cloudy, rather than cloudless skies. Therefpore a rtrait, [rain], will become "more prominent" depending upon the degree of cloud cover. It's true, but it isn't a truth that can be elevated to the status of 'scientific insight' or 'universal principle of science', or anything so edifying as all that. In short, your statement, as it stands, is meaningless.
However the trait (rain) will not persist beyond the environment (cloud) unlike the traits we are talking about. You are confusing strict cause (cloud) and effect (rain) , the rain will cease to exist once the clouds cease to exist, however the hereditary trait will still exist in a population after the environment changes. Nor do hereditary traits have to be passed on - generally they will be, but it is not necessary: stochastic events can eliminate new traits no matter how favorable they are.
What I hear you saying is that "NS" does not generate biodiversity, but causes particular bioforms to expand numerically. Now, my understanding of biodiversity says that the term has only to do with the numbers of different bioforms, and has nothing to do with the number of individuals belonging to a particular bioform. Therefore your "RM" still has nothing at all to do with biodiversity. Show me where I'm wrong.
By selecting for different variations of subpopulations of a species to live in different habitats and by selecting mutations to adapt to those different habitats, selections that would not necessarily occur in the original habitat..
Whether variation "gets passed on or not" has nothing to do with whether or not biodiversity increases, although it might be said to have something to do with whether or not it decreases. When a novel bioform, evern a single individual, comes into existence, then biodiversity may be said to have increased. So long as a single individual example of that bioform exists, it does not effect the sum of biodiversity. When the the last extant individual dies, that bioform goes extinct, and by so doing decreases biodiversity. In between its coming into existence and its extinction, that bioform does not alter the sum of biodiversity in the biosphere.
But variations ARE biodiversity. And yes every individual organism is a novel organism ("bioform") even though they share many traits with other individuals, each individual cannot have more than two variation forms (alleles) of a specific gene, so adding a new allele increases the biodiversity of a population. Selecting for that new allele to be shared with all the other alleles of all the other traits in different combinations also increases the biodiversity of the population without any new(er) mutations needed. Selection can also operate to keep a new allele from being passed on, so it can work to increase or decrease diversity.
If a change in something is determined, predetermined, predestined, inevitable, inflexible, and mechanical, [see water freezing, melting, flowing, boiling, steaming, etc.], then in what sense can it be called 'adaptive', that is, 'able to adapt', where 'to adapt' means something more than simply 'to change/to be changed'?!?
Seeing as none of those processes apply to adaptations of life forms your point is irrelevant.
Of course, if you wish to reduce 'to adapt' to a simple synonym for 'to change', as opposed to being a particular kind of change, I won't try to stop you, but that misses the point. WRT bioforms, 'to adapt' means to dynamically 'make suitable to or consistent with a particular situation or use'
Not really - it means that variations that make organisms even slightly better adapted for an environment will be preferentially selected over those who are just slightly less adapted for an environment. Each generation is selected for all individuals with better combinations of hereditary traits because they
are better adapted to the environment, but the individuals are not changed - "made suitable" - by the environment. Individuals do not evolve, they live, die and reproduce, and those in each generation that are better adapted to an environment have an easier time living and reproducing and have more opportunity to succeed.
Since that implies teleology, how do you reconcile that teleology with your determinism, without admitting to a belief that the entire universe is "teleologically determined", as opposed to "mechanically determined"? I don't think that you want to go there, do you?
Since your argument is false, it is irrelevant.
Can you explain why causation is even necessary? What do we observe that suggests some causative factor?
It isn't, unless you are a scientist-- or someone who wants to understand reality.
It is one thing to study causation when there is a "trendency" that implies a cause and effect relationship, it is another to claim a cause and effect from an unrelated "trendency" - which is the case here between evolution of species, varieties and life in general, and the "trendency" of biodiversity to increase or decrease over time.
Let me put it this way: the mechanism or process of evolution does not change with the changes in diversity, either to increase it or decrease it.
Enjoy.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2