Questioning The Evolutionary Process

Absoutely incorrect as per the current theory. There is no intention to survive on evolutionary time scale.
================================================ REP: The moment we assign a direction .. we attach a meaning.
Making survival the criteria is equivalent to defining a meaning to life and therefore a purpose.
============================================= REP:Increase of knowledge is meaningless. It serves no purpose for the propagation life or evolution. There is no meaning.
This what the current theory says.
We are random consequences in evolution and we are gene carriers ,
with no sense of Meaning or Purpose.
---------------------------------------------- REP: That individual can be species as well. You see it is a zeor sum game which does not guarantee anything.
------------------------------------------- REP: Thats not my belief .. thats not my opinion . Thats the conclusion derived using Replicating Genes theory.

Hi. You seem to have invented a new theory of evolution of your own.Yours appears to be a mumbo-jumbo of sophomoric metaphysics, whereas the one in the science textbooks appears to be a collection of facts and laws of nature.

Hi, dkv. Welcome to EvC.I'm not sure what your confusion is. Let me try to explain what natural selection is, and then we'll go from there.In any population, some individuals manage to produce a large number of offspring, and others produce a small number of offspring or even no offspring at all. This is a fact.The number of offspring that an individual leaves behind correlates very well with physical features that are hereditary. Individuals with a particular hereditary physical feature (or combination of features) are the ones who produce many progeny, and individuals with other physical features (or combinations) will produce fewer progeny. This, too, is a fact.Since these physical features are hereditary, then those individuals who have the physical features that are associated with producing many offspring will produce many offspring with those physical features. The individuals with the physical features that are associated with producing few or no offspring will produce few or no offspring with those physical features.Therefore, compared to the previous generation, the next generation will consist of a higher proportion of individuals with the features that are associated with producing many offspring and a lower proportion of individuals with the features associated with producing few or no offspring.And the process continues.We call this phenomenon "natural selection."

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

[ps]
You seem to have invented a new theory of evolution of your own.
[/ps]
YES.
[ps]
Yours appears to be a mumbo-jumbo of sophomoric metaphysics, whereas the one in the science textbooks appears to be a collection of facts and laws of nature
[/ps]
Thats why I am here.To discuss and find out who is right?

Ah, so I see.However, what I meant was that when you talk about what you are pleased to call "the current theory", you are also discussing a metaphysical mumbo-jumbo of your own invention, rather than anything you'd find in a textbook.

Huh? If you have a new theory, shouldn't you be in a laboratory or in the field, collecting data to determine whether you are right?Although, I suppose that discussing matters on an internet discussion board might save some us all some trouble -- it might point out that what we know now already refutes your theory. And if you learn something, too, then that's a plus as well!

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

REP: Ok.
In a population where there is a 50% chances of producing male or female cells or offsprings.
The uneven distribution can only be seen in a sample.
But overall there will be equal number of males and females. REP: Yes. In fact in humans the physical features belonging to X chromosome will get
easy representation in future whereas the Y specific genes will get less number of opportunities to express.
Those features includes Pennis or Ability to understand Maths, or breasts or blue eyes
...
Do we know why this is so?
If all genes were replicating like robots then this strategy turns to be unstable manifestation of algorithm. As the more tend to become more ... and few the fewer.
This biased behaviour can result in collapse of genetic heritage... since to do not assign
any purpose to mutation we can remain satisfied that atleast something evolved. REP:Indeed yes. If a species develops a "habit" or gene which drives the Group into greater reproduction then offsprings will also carry those genes and that will lead to further reproduction and so on.example rats .
BUT what is important to admit here is the fact which I mentioned above.
Differential change can be suicidal as well. e.g a cancerious gene which becomes part of X
choromosome can lead to permanent damage. I can share one well researched example of Native Americans... It is said that they suffered such a reduction in their population due to genetic diseases that they got reduced to minority in the same state where they once ruled.
Therefore overall there is no "selection" and it does not guarantee survival over evolutionary timescale.
We can discuss why this unstable or uneven distribution of genetic behaviour came into existence.
Is it possible that the one pool of gene took the greater responsibility of replicating than the other?(algorithmically it means a group of genes came together to neutralize another set of genes..why did this happen is debatable)
Both X and Y carry genes but X specific genes spreads faster.
And the contradiction is this: X can not survive without Y.
Therefore the if X goes down then Y goes down ... and hence X and Y goes extinct.
And as the carriers go out of circulation the genes go out of circulation.
(In this zero sum game no one wins .. not even the genes!!)
The speration of X and Y doid not encourage replication.Asexual was the better option for greater replication.
And the seperation lead to unstable configuration which we see today and it is is largely guided by X.
We dont know why we see this unstable genetic world with organised human species.
According to replication theory .. there was never any purpose at any point of time other
than to replicate locally. And it turned out that the most organised species are the most unlikely ones in the game.
I was expecting that the division algortihm would have worked out it favour of species which replciated with greater efficieny(using any means). But that is not case.Phenotype genes are guided by hereditary behaviour and environment
And the discussion applies to phenotype as well.
Certain characteristics were preferred becuase they were part of privileged pool of genes.
Most of the mammalian characteristics are part of this genetic pool.
(there are excpetions as well.. as I have already mentioned... snakes with no legs but give direct births.. bats which fly...whales which swim.. direct birth requires intenal mechanism to carry the baby )
BUT why ?
No reason can be given.WHere as
My theory explains Evolution more consistently.
Any kind of system which can be called life migrates towards sustainable pleasure.

Um, this really doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying.The rest of your post is also pretty confused and indicates a lack of understanding of biology and evolution.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

Current theory does not say there is intention to survive, there is only do or not do. Which would be why assigning a direction would be false thinking according to current theory. Survival (or not) is not a criteria, it is the observed physical effect of the interaction between individual and ecology. Meaning of life is what you make of it. This is not bound by evolution, just as evolution is not bound by it: they are independent consequences of life. Ah, I thought we were talking about the theory of biological evolution. The theory that species change over time due to mutation and natural selection and some other mechanisms:

quote:

---

See Message 158

​

(1) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time.

​

(2) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected.

​

(3) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, due to the available variations (diversity) within populations from the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected, due to the differential response of organisms under prevailing ecological pressures to their individual development, their ability to pass on hereditary traits to the next generation, and their opportunities to disperse into other ecological habitats.

​

(4) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes:

• theories on how change is enabled
  ...(list of theories on different mechanisms for the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits within populations)
• theories on how changes made within each generation are selected
  ...(list of theories on different mechanisms of selection and where and when they operate)
  ... etc

​

Now it may be interesting to flesh out #4 with the lists of theories from natural selection to genetic drift to punk-eek to runaway sexual selection ... etc.

---

Natural selection operates on the individuals, and the sum of the effects on the individuals is the total effect on the population, the total effects on different populations of a species add up to the effect on the species. There is no additional effect that would be due to the species or to any of the populations.I read your Message 228 and Message 235 where you talk about your theory (and this curious "Replicating Genes theory"). Please start a new thread on it. In the meantime I suggest learning more about the "current theory" as it seems you have some misconceptions there.The fact that sex is pleasurable would be a logical result of evolution not a cause of it (those that find it pleasurable will engage in more of it, producing more offspring thus increased numbers of individual that find it pleasurable due to natural selection for that trait).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.

Lack of understanding of Evolution :
Evolution is said to have occurred if a set of differential changes become largely common or uncommon.Lack of Understanding of Biology:
Biology is the study of life and its processes.It has extended beyond that definition.Biology is talking about robots and information theory.Large scale formation of knowledge structures.But
Why the number of offspring that an individual leaves behind correlates very well with physical features that are hereditary?What is your answer?My answer is that becuase the environment remains largely static
we do not find phenotype changes.And my assertion is that these Phenotype genes are part of priviledged pool .. which are common to male and female.Is it possible to understand mutation as a sudden change?
No..Changes definitely occur but those changes are largely resilient when it comes to physical structure ... because these changes are environment dependent.Only if the environment changes slowly without killing the species such that it favours the new generation with "other" physical properties the new phenotype changes can take place. See this what I am saying .. If this phenotype genes belongs to a privileged pool of genes which is common to male and female then it will maintain greater visibility in the species e.g structure.
Once a change occurs in this pool it becomes a characteristics of the whole species. (But this is not we are discussing)What you are saying is that those Mutation of phenotype genes will get suppressed which are not hereditary or similar to the parent .
Those with similar physical properties will produce more descendants.
But the conclusion that genes which carry "other" physical properties will not be able to grow is not necessarily true.If the environment is such that it prefers those different physical characteristics then they should grow.
e.g Only then migration from Sea to Land is possible.
Moreover how do you explain the long neck of giraffe. The physical characteristics changed over a period of time. The security in terms of many offspring gives a wrong idea of future..
Because if environment remains constant then it "appears" that hereditary chain is getting carried (i.e the many offsprings of species are getting produced )
If the environment is changing then those with "other" physical properties might survive to produce many.In anycase the conclusion that only hereditary characteristics preferred is wrong .. if the environment supports the changes in phenotype genes they should outgrow the ancestors. (We dont find giraffe with short neck) But yes we know that Giraffe must have had a neck.Is there any misunderstanding?
Mutation is due to changes in the environment.The mammals will start swimming if the environmental changes are conducive over a very large period of time.
Elephants , tigers already know how to swim.But this doesnt solve anything.
Does it?
The changes are random guided by Nature or Environment.
The evoltuionary algorithm might reinforce replication but if the environment is not supportive then the populations will not grow.
At the same time iff the environment remains largely static then no diversity is possible.
The actual life involves genes and environment.And it is purely random.There is no non-random component to replication...there is nothing called as Natural selection...Since the evolutionary algorithm is constant:
The reasoning can be done the basis of environment.This happened because environment changed in such and such way..
Why birds developed wings?
Why Cheetah runs so fast?
Why fish developed fins?
Why Chimpanzee's and Gorillas look like human?Imagine a scenario when it was not possible to stand up.
Then becuase the environment started changing in such a way
that monkeys can chimpanzee came into existence.In a way the game of life suggests that all species tend to adjust to the environment.
If they fail they die as the algorithm does not guarantee that mutations will occur in favour of environmental changes.Its purely by chance that some of the mutation turned out to be favourable within the context of changed environment.Where is the natural selection?
There was a likelyhood of a giraffe growing a long neck.
It was not deterministic.When I say environment guides the mutation , it means that those mutations which are in sync with the changes environmental changes survive rest die.

Actually, environments don't remain static.- Unfortunately, your assertain seems to be largely irrelevant. I will repeat the definition of natural selection again:

quote:

---

In any population, some individuals manage to produce a large number of offspring, and others produce a small number of offspring or even no offspring at all. This is a fact.

​

The number of offspring that an individual leaves behind correlates very well with physical features that are hereditary. Individuals with a particular hereditary physical feature (or combination of features) are the ones who produce many progeny, and individuals with other physical features (or combinations) will produce fewer progeny. This, too, is a fact.

​

Since these physical features are hereditary, then those individuals who have the physical features that are associated with producing many offspring will produce many offspring with those physical features. The individuals with the physical features that are associated with producing few or no offspring will produce few or no offspring with those physical features.

​

Therefore, compared to the previous generation, the next generation will consist of a higher proportion of individuals with the features that are associated with producing many offspring and a lower proportion of individuals with the features associated with producing few or no offspring.

---

There is nothing there about male or female. What I have written applies to traits belonging to asexually reproducing species, hermaphrodite species, traits that are sex-linked, and traits whose genes are found in the non-sex chromosones.- Actually, this is what we are discussing. Actually, this is what I am discussing. It may not be what you are discussing, but it's not clear what you are discussing. You are discussing your own idiosyncratic conceptions using your own definitions of words, and it's very hard to make out what you are trying to say.- No, I haven't said anything about mutations yet. My explanation of natural selection applies to all hereditary features, whether they have been present in the population for some time or have been recently introduced as mutations.- There is very little evidence that this is the case, and much evidence that it is not.Mutations are largely random. There will be some mutations that will result in changes in phenotype that will just happen to give the individual a reproductive advantage in the changed environment, and there will be some mutations that will just happen to make the individual disadvantaged in the changed evironment, and there will be mutations that will be neutral over all.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

REP:
What leads to these other physical features?
As I understand
Randomly a particular set of hereditary physical feature has greater ability to produce offsprings.While another set of offsprings carry physical features which lead to lesser number of offsprings.For example let us say that it turns out that a offsprings of Fat individual have the greater ability to reproduce.
Where as those offsprings which do not carry this fat gene produce less.As it is expected that in America 70% of the poulation will be fat in couple of years.
========================================== REP: Ok.Since it turns out that fat gene carrier are favoured for reproduction .. the future remains bright for these fat genes carriers.
============================================= REP: Ok. So selection favours those genes which reproduce the maximum.
============================================

No, it's not so random. If the bark of the trees on which a particular moth rests is dark colored, then the darker colored moths will blend in more and escape predation. Lighter color moths will tend to stand out more, and so predators will be able to spot them easier. Not really random at all.- Yes, if there is a fat gene, and if the those who possess it really do have a reproductive advantage. If the "fat gene" exists, and if the individual who possesses it is at a reproductive disadvantage, then there will be fewer fat Americans than there would otherwise be. If there is no fat gene, or if having this gene has no bearing on the number of offspring that is produced, then this example is irrelevant to natural selection.- We don't know that there is a fat gene, nor do we know whether it increases reproductive fitness.- This makes no sense. English isn't your native language, is it?

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

It comes from a gene reductionist viewpoint, thinking that natural selection operates on individual genes. It doesn't - it operates on phenotypes that have many mutations, some beneficial and some not, and it is the overall fitness that is selected. This may involve the interaction of two or more mutations where one of them alone is insufficient.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.

Thank you very much.
You understanding has really shown me the path.