natural selection is wrong

Mr Jack,Lightning strikes aren't included is a part of natural selection because they aren't selective.Mark

Mr Jack,I presume you are being facetious?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Mr Jack, Either the species whose individuals are being struck by lightning possess variants that are able to better resist lightning, or they don't. It is implicit that the article is using the lightning as an indiscriminate culler. Given that the population posesses no variation that can be selected for or against from the organisms point of view, then no adaptive evolution can occur; therefore no selection occurs.I do concede that random culling can change the allele frequency within a population, however, but I put it to you that this is better described as genetic or neutral drift, rather than natural selection, since the alteration of allele frequency has nought to do with the alleles themselves.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-24-2004 11:27 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Syamsu,[Once more into the breach]Can we at least agree that natural selection was, & is, primarily formulated to explain adaptation?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-27-2004 09:31 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Syamsu,Message 30 pls.Thanks,Mark

Syamsu,Message 30, please.Mark

Syamsu,Message 30, please.Mark

Syamsu,The theory of Natural Selection was originally formulated to explain adaptation. It was subsequently able to explain a range of other phenomena such as evolutionarily stable strategies, stasis, etc. In each case "selection" requires the stochastic action of the environment on different geno/phenotypes within a population resulting in differential reproductive success of some phenotypes over others.I don't deny the type of action the environment has upon individuals & populations that you mention. For example, you mention the deaths of many migratory birds easing competitive pressures for that species. True, it would. But since it acts over the whole population there is no differential reproductive success. The whole population benefits, & as a result there is no adaptation as a result of lessened intraspecific competition. In fact, the only affect such non-selective pressures have is on overall population size.Bringing you back to the reason that the Theory of Natural Selection was formulated, adaptation. The migratory deaths of the birds in question has no efficacy regarding adaptation. It's a bit like talking about the Theory of Gravity by including the strong & weak nuclear forces, along with electromagnetism. True, they are all forces, gravity included, but the gravitational theory pertains to gravity & nothing else. In the same way natural selection pertains to the organism, the environment, adaptation, & the maintainence of systems via selective pressures.Have your theory, if you will, just don't call it "natural selection". The term has already been coined to explain something specific.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-02-2004 06:16 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Syamsu, !Are you saying adaptation doesn't occur? When a wide variation of colours of guppy are placed in waters with predators, & a colour pattern emerges that matches the gravelly bottom, are you seriously saying that we aren't allowed to say adaptation has occurred? Does it matter that we potentially couldn't place a value upon the effect? It's like saying we're not allowed to discuss the fact it is raining without being able to quantify how hard.Natural Selection WAS invoked to explain adaptation of organisms to their environments. That you think it is unmeasurable or not is neither here nor there. Selective pressures force variation in populations to remain stable, increase in frequency, or decrease in fequency. I have mentioned Endlers study of Poecilia reticulata which measured the unmeasurable in a previous thread.We aren't allowed to mention "adaptation" on your say so, now? Unbelievable.The efficacy of NS as an explanation is based upon selective pressures forcing directional change or stabilising equilibria. An environmental phenomena that acts across a population equally doesn't change anything on average except population numbers. It culls, nothing more. It has no explanatory power as regards the above for which NS was formulated, as a driving mechanism for evolution. In effect, it is meaningless to evolutionary theory except as a potential agent of neutral drift, which by definition is non-selective, & is therefore more reasonably removed from NS.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-02-2004 09:04 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Syamsu, Thank you, that's all I needed. The guppy population adapted to it's environment. See, you didn't need to have figures to 10 decimal places to understand retrospectively that adaptation occurred, after all! All things being equal this is correct. It's also neither here nor there.My last two posts stand. Allow me to reiterate.

quote:

---

mark24 wrote:

​

The theory of Natural Selection was originally formulated to explain adaptation. It was subsequently able to explain a range of other phenomena such as evolutionarily stable strategies, stasis, etc. In each case "selection" requires the stochastic action of the environment on different geno/phenotypes within a population resulting in differential reproductive success of some phenotypes over others.

​

I don't deny the type of action the environment has upon individuals & populations that you mention. For example, you mention the deaths of many migratory birds easing competitive pressures for that species. True, it would. But since it acts over the whole population there is no differential reproductive success. The whole population benefits, & as a result there is no adaptation as a result of lessened intraspecific competition. In fact, the only affect such non-selective pressures have is on overall population size.

​

Bringing you back to the reason that the Theory of Natural Selection was formulated, adaptation. The migratory deaths of the birds in question has no efficacy regarding adaptation. It's a bit like talking about the Theory of Gravity by including the strong & weak nuclear forces, along with electromagnetism. True, they are all forces, gravity included, but the gravitational theory pertains to gravity & nothing else. In the same way natural selection pertains to the organism, the environment, adaptation, & the maintainence of systems via selective pressures.

​

Have your theory, if you will, just don't call it "natural selection". The term has already been coined to explain something specific.

---

Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Brad,Commas.Mark

Brad,NP. I had to be resuscitated reading your penultimate paragraph. MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-02-2004 07:40 PM

Syamsu,Regarding message 86, I ask again, what is the point of including a non-directional culling factor to a theory that was formulated for, & still does, provide a mechanism for adaptation?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Syamsu,"The best of all possible worlds" isn't a teleological statement.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Syamsu, Nonsense. NS explains what happens to extant variation. That's all it's supposed to do. How it got there is neither here nor there. That is the domain of genetics, & the job of evolutionary theory in general to synthesise the two into a larger whole. Yet it still remains possible to explain frequency change in population despite not knowing how that variation occurred in the first place.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-05-2004 06:55 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't