Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-22-2017 11:38 PM
386 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx, Vlad (7 members, 379 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,873 Year: 16,479/21,208 Month: 2,368/3,593 Week: 481/882 Day: 102/97 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56789
10
Author Topic:   Doesn't Natural Selection lead to Specified Complexity?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12759
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 138 of 138 (702089)
07-01-2013 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Peter
07-01-2013 5:20 AM


Re: Drifting into drift.
quote:

At any point in time, k, the genetic makeup of the population is an acculation of the results from the past .... which will include deceased individuals. So maybe I changed tack a bit there, but it's been a while since I even looked at what I was saying here.

Well, that may explain why you aren't making sense. If you don't understand the position you are trying to defend how can you make sensible arguments?

The point you are meant to be explaining is why the effect of selection on the distribution of genes in the current population should be a function of the distribution of genes in the current population, rather than the previous generation. And yet in the case of drift you DO use the previous generation.

Interestingly, this means that if there were no drift, the previous generation would have no relevance to your formula.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Peter, posted 07-01-2013 5:20 AM Peter has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
56789
10
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017