Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there more than one definition of natural selection?
dkv
Member (Idle past 5732 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 09-15-2007


Message 226 of 302 (421970)
09-15-2007 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fosdick
03-28-2007 1:35 PM


He stands right :Although I would like to modify it.
Original defintion is:
"Natural selection: The differential contribution of offspring to the next generation by individuals of different genetic types but belonging to the same population."
My defintion :
Natural selection: The differential random accumulation of characteristics of offsprings in the next generation due to different genetic types belonging to the same population.
We can not use words like contribution or by individuals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fosdick, posted 03-28-2007 1:35 PM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2007 10:47 AM dkv has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 227 of 302 (421972)
09-15-2007 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by dkv
09-15-2007 10:35 AM


We can not use words like contribution or by individuals.
We can. Natural selection operates on the phenotype of individuals, whether it is survival, disease, disability or sexual reproduction.
Those that survive and reproduce contribute to the genetic composition of the population of the next generation. Those that do not make no genetic contribution.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by dkv, posted 09-15-2007 10:35 AM dkv has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by dkv, posted 09-15-2007 11:50 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 229 by Fosdick, posted 09-15-2007 12:06 PM RAZD has replied

dkv
Member (Idle past 5732 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 09-15-2007


Message 228 of 302 (421983)
09-15-2007 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by RAZD
09-15-2007 10:47 AM


We can. Natural selection operates on the phenotype of individuals, whether it is survival, disease, disability or sexual reproduction.
REP: Thats what is under discussion.
What follows is a Little bit of history here and my point of view:
The asexually reproductive cell changed the behaviour to sexual for unknown reasons.Asexual reproduction is better for replication algorithmcally. And this is what the genes do.
This strategy of change from asexual to sexual carried no inherent intention.
We know that there are 4 legged mammals and therefore we can expect
the common ancestors to mammals to have 4 legs as well.
We do not expect the common ancestor to have 6 legs.
But why will any animal need 6 legs where 4 limbs are sufficient.
The change in structure leads to genotype changes as well and vice versa. With 6 limbs the species will have to change the behaviour as well ....How to hunt ? How to defend ? How to involve in Sex ?
Similarly if the required behvaiour is such that 6 limbs are required then why not?
This is the typical need based reasoning which is needed for
phenotype stability.
Therefore we find a concept of non-random mutation.
BUT How is this possible?
A radom mechanical (which can be fitted into machine) leads to a non-random and non-mechanical manifestation of selection.
This is impossible.
All logical constructs are inconsistent and incomplete.
Precisely it means a machine can not come out of loops on its own.
(e.g loops : This statement is false. )
As a machine can not think.It simply executes the algorithm and the statement can not be answered by any Universal Truth Machine.
Therefore if assume random origins then the non-random appearence is due to lack of knowledge.
Which means there is flaw in the algorithm of evolution.
Therefore we are having this debate.
I have a solution for this.
The assign a purpose to the evolution of life.
All life forms work towards sustainable pleasure.
TSP is the backbone of my theory of evolution...
So far the theory has explained everything which the Dawkins theory can explain.It may need a sperate thread to discuss.
Or you can create a Thread : Do you believe that pleasure is the root cause of evolution ? and we will discuss.
================================================
Those that survive and reproduce contribute to the genetic composition of the population of the next generation. Those that do not make no genetic contribution.
REP:As per current theory there can not be any desire to contribute to genetic compostion.(Infact from TSP point of view there is no such desire but even without desire it turns out that phenotype genes will be extra stable.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2007 10:47 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2007 5:29 PM dkv has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 229 of 302 (421988)
09-15-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by RAZD
09-15-2007 10:47 AM


Is NS the surgeon or the surgery?
RAZD writes:
Natural selection operates on the phenotype of individuals, whether it is survival, disease, disability or sexual reproduction.
Does NS “operate” on the phenotypes of individuals, like a surgeon who operates on a patient’s liver? Or does it “operate” instead on the reproductive success of populations? NS engages when that success is not uniform across individuals? I think there is a cause-effect relationship to consider here. Is NS a cause or an effect? Neither? Both?
Here's how I see it. NS, in and of itself, does not occur at the individual level. NS is about a population’s differential reproductive success. You can’t have evolution occurring in individuals, only in populations. Whatever alters a population’s uniform success in reproduction may have multiple causes”environmental factors, mutation, gene flow”and NS may not always, or not even often, play the lead role in evolution.
This issue seems like old dirty laundry to me. Why haven't we cleaned this up?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2007 10:47 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2007 1:08 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2007 5:44 PM Fosdick has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 230 of 302 (421999)
09-15-2007 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Fosdick
09-15-2007 12:06 PM


Re: Is NS the surgeon or the surgery?
Why is "both" not an appropriate answer? NS selects among individuals. NS has an effect on the population as a result.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Fosdick, posted 09-15-2007 12:06 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Fosdick, posted 09-15-2007 1:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 231 of 302 (422001)
09-15-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by crashfrog
09-15-2007 1:08 PM


Re: Is NS the surgeon or the surgery?
cf wrote:
NS selects among individuals.
crash, I don't think so. I think this notion is a large part of the confusion about what exactly NS is.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2007 1:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2007 2:17 PM Fosdick has replied

dkv
Member (Idle past 5732 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 09-15-2007


Message 232 of 302 (422006)
09-15-2007 1:46 PM


Here's how I see it. NS, in and of itself, does not occur at the individual level. NS is about a population’s differential reproductive success. You can’t have evolution occurring in individuals, only in populations. Whatever alters a population’s uniform success in reproduction may have multiple causes”environmental factors, mutation, gene flow”and NS may not always, or not even often, play the lead role in evolution.
REP: The local differential success does not add upto the global success. But How is this this possible ?
THIS is possible because locally differential can result into failure.
The species are unstable ...Differntial can set the Species on suicidal path..Its a matter of one or two genes to annihilate the entire species(due uneven distribution of genetic pools ).
It is important to understand that there is nothing(individually or statistically) like "Natural" in the Selection process which can guide the species to success.
The current theory of GENE REPLICATION requires non-random selection for the stability of phenotype genes.( 6 limbs to 4 limbs doesnt happen suddenly .. but behavioural changes can take place more quickly... note that some snakes reproduce babies as well and we dont call them mammals )
This non-random selection can not evolve out of any algorithm.
(I have posted a thread under proposed topics where I ask whether Knowledge is evolutionary or not?)
I explain this stability using my theory of Towards Sustainable Pleasure which explicitly requires stable phenotypes for sustainable pleasure of Group over large period of time.
Infact all Group and individuals aim TSP.
The sterile soldier bees can be explained using my theory.
It explains transition from asexual to sexual.
The sexual behaviour of birds can be explained.
The wide use of Condoms can be explained,
Homosexuality can be explained
Early recognition of sexuality can be explained
It can also explain diseases like cancer.
(due to improper strategy towards collective sustainable pleasure)
The theory brings together pyschology and biology.
Thoughts and emotions.
Gives life a purpose.
All you have to do is learn the three words:
Towards Sustainbale Pleasure
Towards - It is process
Sustainable - It is a strategy
Pleasure (or Happiness)-It is the experience ...
Pleasure is a biological state which can also be achieved using drugs.
But it may not be sustainable.
Therefore all 3 words are important.
It is a scientific theory.

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 233 of 302 (422018)
09-15-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Fosdick
09-15-2007 1:17 PM


Re: Is NS the surgeon or the surgery?
crash, I don't think so.
I don't understand why. Tell me where I'm wrong in this example.
You have 50 individuals in a population of asexual haploid weebles. 25 are camouflaged via heritable mutations. 25 are bright orange.
Color-sighted, visually-oriented predators enter the area. Soon, 20 of the orange weebles have been eaten. Only 5 of the camo weebles have been eaten. The remaining weebles double their number: 40 camo weebles and 10 orange weebles.
That's natural selection. It operated on individuals, selecting camo weebles over orange weebles. It had an effect on the gene frequency of the population; the camo gene increased in frequency (from 25 to 40) and the orange gene decreased in frequency (from 25 to 10.)
Natural selection operates on individuals; as a result, it shapes populations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Fosdick, posted 09-15-2007 1:17 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Fosdick, posted 09-15-2007 8:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 234 of 302 (422057)
09-15-2007 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by dkv
09-15-2007 11:50 AM


What follows is a Little bit of history here and my point of view:
The change in structure leads to genotype changes as well and vice versa.
Nope. There is no mechanism by which any change in structure can be transmitted back to the genotype. None. This concept -- essentially what is known as Lamarkism -- has already been falsified because of this.
With 6 limbs the species will have to change the behaviour as well ....How to hunt ? How to defend ? How to involve in Sex ?
Insects manage it quite well.
This is the typical need based reasoning which is needed for
phenotype stability.
Need based reasoning is also false. There is no response to "need" in biological evolution, there is only response to ecological changes and opportunities.
Therefore we find a concept of non-random mutation.
This too is falsified by genetic research. Mutations are random. Random in where and when they occur. There are mechanisms by which organisms under stress can increase the rates of mutation, but this has no effect on the kinds of mutations that occur.
A radom mechanical (which can be fitted into machine) leads to a non-random and non-mechanical manifestation of selection.
This is impossible.
All logical constructs are inconsistent and incomplete.
Precisely it means a machine can not come out of loops on its own.
(e.g loops : This statement is false. )
As a machine can not think.It simply executes the algorithm and the statement can not be answered by any Universal Truth Machine.
Sorry, I don't follow what you are trying to say here. Organisms are not machines. Machines don't reproduce and thus aren't affected by natural selection.
I have a solution for this.
The assign a purpose to the evolution of life.
All life forms work towards sustainable pleasure.
TSP is the backbone of my theory of evolution...
So far the theory has explained everything which the Dawkins theory can explain.It may need a sperate thread to discuss.
Or you can create a Thread : Do you believe that pleasure is the root cause of evolution ? and we will discuss.
I suggest a new thread where you lay out what your theory is and how it applies. Most critical would be how you would test the theory against observations to show your theory would have a different objective outcome than biological evolution (whether expressed by Dawkins or Mayr or whoever is irrelevant - it has to measure against the science of biologial evolution).
Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.
As per current theory there can not be any desire to contribute to genetic compostion.(Infact from TSP point of view there is no such desire but even without desire it turns out that phenotype genes will be extra stable.)
All it takes is reproduction of surviving organisms. Nothing more is needed to account for the evidence.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by dkv, posted 09-15-2007 11:50 AM dkv has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 235 of 302 (422062)
09-15-2007 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Fosdick
09-15-2007 12:06 PM


Re: Is NS the surgeon or the surgery?
Does NS “operate” on the phenotypes of individuals, like a surgeon who operates on a patient’s liver? Or does it “operate” instead on the reproductive success of populations? NS engages when that success is not uniform across individuals?
When an individual dies the rest of the population is unaffected. When an individual reproduces the rest of the population is unaffected. Natural selection therefore operates on the individual as expressed in the phenotype based on their genotype.
Whatever alters a population’s uniform success in reproduction may have multiple causes”environmental factors, mutation, gene flow”and NS may not always, or not even often, play the lead role in evolution.
The effect on the population is the sum of the effects on the individuals, and there is no effect on the population that is then transmitted back to individuals to affect their existence.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Fosdick, posted 09-15-2007 12:06 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Fosdick, posted 09-15-2007 8:27 PM RAZD has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 236 of 302 (422103)
09-15-2007 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by RAZD
09-15-2007 5:44 PM


Re: Is NS the surgeon or the surgery?
RAZD wrote:
When an individual dies the rest of the population is unaffected. When an individual reproduces the rest of the population is unaffected. Natural selection therefore operates on the individual as expressed in the phenotype based on their genotype.
I simply do not understand that statement.
The effect on the population is the sum of the effects on the individuals,...
So, NS occurs where exactly? In the population or in the individual?
...and there is no effect on the population that is then transmitted back to individuals to affect their existence.
I don't entirely get this. Who ever said that, anyway? All any individual can do to affect evolution by NS is to make gametes and have sex hopefully. Meanwhile, evolution by NS goes on in the population. Indeed, the selection of beneficial alleles in that population is what is really going on, I think.
btw: As I'm sure you know, Darwinian evolution by NS was postulated on the Malthusian principle: Populations often produce more individuals than available resources are able to sustain. The whole thing rides on a train called Population. Individuals do not have to go through Door #1 marked "Naturally Selected" or Door #2 marked "Naturally Not Selected" like quiz-show contestants.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2007 5:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2007 9:32 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2007 2:24 AM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 237 of 302 (422105)
09-15-2007 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by crashfrog
09-15-2007 2:17 PM


Re: Is NS the surgeon or the surgery?
crash:
I don't understand why. Tell me where I'm wrong in this example...That's natural selection. It operated on individuals, selecting camo weebles over orange weebles. It had an effect on the gene frequency of the population; the camo gene increased in frequency (from 25 to 40) and the orange gene decreased in frequency (from 25 to 10.)
Natural selection operates on individuals; as a result, it shapes populations.
crash, I like your weebles but I have just addressed this issue in my comments to RAZD in Message 236.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2007 2:17 PM crashfrog has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 238 of 302 (422112)
09-15-2007 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Fosdick
09-15-2007 8:27 PM


Re: Is NS the surgeon or the surgery?
...and there is no effect on the population that is then transmitted back to individuals to affect their existence.
I don't entirely get this. Who ever said that, anyway?
That is what you would have to see happen IF natural selection operated on the population.
So, NS occurs where exactly? In the population or in the individual?
In the individual. When an individual dies the rest of the population is unaffected. When an individual reproduces the rest of the population is unaffected. Natural selection therefore operates on the individual as expressed in the phenotype based on their genotype.
I simply do not understand that statement.
Is your fitness to survive or ability to reproduce affected by the ability of someone across town to to survive or reproduce? Selection is on the individual.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Fosdick, posted 09-15-2007 8:27 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Fosdick, posted 09-16-2007 11:31 AM RAZD has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 239 of 302 (422138)
09-16-2007 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Fosdick
09-15-2007 8:27 PM


Re: Is NS the surgeon or the surgery?
So, NS occurs where exactly? In the population or in the individual?
Both. Individuals are selected - and populations are comprised of individuals. Thus, selecting among individuals has an effect on the population.
Individuals do not have to go through Door #1 marked "Naturally Selected" or Door #2 marked "Naturally Not Selected" like quiz-show contestants.
The doors they go through are called "lived long enough to reproduce" and "didn't live long enough to reproduce." Natural selection is the force that sorts them through these doors. Everybody who's not currently going through door number 2 is a member of a group called "the population."
The whole thing rides on a train called Population.
Try to keep in mind that there's really no such thing as "populations." There's just individuals. We group some of them into populations intellectually, but that's not exactly indicative of physical reality. Theoretically you're a member of the human "population", as is Ana Ng who lives on the other side of the world; in reality, though, you lack any sort of physical connection to Ana Ng. You've never met her. You're only members of the same population in an intellectual sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Fosdick, posted 09-15-2007 8:27 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Fosdick, posted 09-16-2007 12:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 240 of 302 (422191)
09-16-2007 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by RAZD
09-15-2007 9:32 PM


Do individuals evolve?
So, NS occurs where exactly? In the population or in the individual?
In the individual.
RAZD, if you have an experimental human population of four individuals”Nancy, Jack, Judy, and Frank”and NS came calling, please tell me exactly how it would “select” amongst those individuals? What happens when an individual is “selected”? Does it get to survive? To mate? Can’t “unselected” ones do those things, too? And please tell what a “selected individual” means to the course of evolution. If all four individuals got “naturally selected” in an evolutionary event, but afterwards a bear came by and ate them, would they have been “unselected” by the bear?
You are far better off, IMHO, to let NS have its way with populations than to say that individuals are the ones being selected. Individuals are only the carriers of beneficial, neutral, and harmful alleles. Individuals do not move forward in the course of evolution, but alleles do. Therefore, NS “selects” for the alleles in a population, not individuals. There has never been an individual anything that has successfully evolved into something else. There was never an individual fish that evolved into an individual amphibian. That kind of morphing goes on in populations when their alleles get sorted out.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2007 9:32 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2007 12:03 PM Fosdick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024