Falsification theory of Natural Selection

Syamsu writes:

---

There is an important difference between describing organisms in terms of staying alive and describing organisms in terms of reproduction.

---

Yes, they're different things, and natural selection requires both. No matter what the particular wording anyone here has used in defining natural selection, no one intended to say that it only requires staying alive. That would make no sense. Nothing is being selected if there is no reproduction. Natural selection requires staying alive in order to reproduce. Wherever anyone just used the word "survival" in defining natural selection they meant "survival to reproduce." No one here is trying to tell you that natural selection just means survival.

---

I think the use of survival by early Darwinists explains their focus on the population as the unit of selection that Natural Selection acts on, since the populations can be said to survive continuously more or less, and individuals can't be said to survive continuously.

---

Just as you earlier confused Fisher with Darwinists, I think you may now be confusing Darwinists with population geneticists. Certainly Darwin applied natural selection at the individual level. This is from his 1844 essay:

Darwin writes:

---

Besides this natural means of selection, by which those individuals are preserved, whether in their egg, or larval, or mature state, which are best adapted to the place they fill in nature,...

---

--Percy

Reproductive fitness is not fit reproduction. But good luck.

But then survival to reproduce is a contamination of words, since there is no reproduction of the dead. It seems you're just being defensive here, when you should be critical. Peter said that the mechanism of Natural Selection is for an organism to survive or not to survive, as he illustrated with would=be eternal non-reproducing creatures still being able to be said to be selected.I can quote many things in favour of Darwin as a groupselectionist. His opinion on this point, as on so many other points is not clear, through not having formalized or systemized his theory any. In any case, the early Darwinists predominantly tended to be groupselectionists as far as I know."Do the races or species of man encroach on each other, until some finally become extinct? We shall see that this is true, just as with the lower animals.""Extinction chiefly occurs through the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race."regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
But then survival to reproduce is a contamination of words, since there is no reproduction of the dead.

---

Sorry. This makes no sense.

quote:

---

Peter said that the mechanism of Natural Selection is for an organism to survive or not to survive, as he illustrated with would=be eternal non-reproducing creatures still being able to be said to be selected.

---

Selected? Yes. Evolve? No. As selection works on living individuals, but evolution is the result of the small changes of genetic make-up of a population, generation by generation, as a result of selection. Evolution requires reproduction, selection doesn't.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

The standard definition of biological evolution denotes a change in the reproductive material of a population, this includes changes trhough individuals dying.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
The standard definition of biological evolution denotes a change in the reproductive material of a population, this includes changes trhough individuals dying.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Ok. So?Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

Evolution is a change in *reproductive* material of a population, not survival material. If some organism in a population dies, it's already evolution. Populations without reproductive material do not evolve.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Evolution is a change in *reproductive* material of a population, not survival material. If some organism in a population dies, it's already evolution. Populations without reproductive material do not evolve.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Right. I'm following you on this, but what is the point?
For all I can tell, you are describing natural selection/evolution and calling it by another name. Help me out here.Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

Well, considering the hour, it took a bit of time to get through this thread to this point, but it was well worth the effort. This is some of the best posting I have come across yet in this entire forum. Many thanks to all for some very thought provoking opinions, as well as some extremely fascinating posts. Though oftentimes being nearly as indepth as the discussions and articles pertaining to the Lambeth Quadrilateral, requiring a second reading to get the full effect, the effort and expertise of presentation was truly a joy and a pleasure to receive. Kudos to all!------------------
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! FEED YOUR BRAIN!".....................Jet"The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. Now we would like to pursue that inquiry farther back in time, but the barrier to further progress seems insurmountable.It is not a matter of another year, another decade of work, another measurement, or another theory; at this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation.For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

Syamasu: This is incorrect. I think Peter is right, you're still confusing the two levels we're discussing. The "unit of selection" is the individual organism. The "unit of evolution" is the population. As such, the only time reproduction enters into the equation is as the mechanism by which certain traits are transmitted from generation to generation. The two levels are related, obviously, but are not functionally the same.In asexual lineages, for instance, all other things being equal all subsequent generations will be completely identical to the parent. In the absence of selection pressures operating on the individual organism, there can be no evolution. ONLY when certain traits provide a net survival advantage - some organisms preferentially surviving to pass on their genetic heritage - can evolution occur.

quote:

---

If some organism in a population dies, it's already evolution.

---

Not if all the organisms in a population are genetically identical - as can occur in some asexual lineages (for example pure lab strains of bacteria). In this instance, the death of one - or a million - individuals has no evolutionary effect because it doesn't effect the gene pool of the population as a whole - they're all identical.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Evolution is a change in *reproductive* material of a population,

---

Yes (assuming that by reproductive material you mean genetic
material).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

not survival material.

---

Survival material MUST be genetic traits, and is therefore the
SAME as reproductive material (in an individual).They are genetic materials which can be passed on to subsequent
generations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

If some organism in a population dies, it's already evolution.

---

No its not. Evolution can only happen by passing traits to
offspring. If an organism dies it passes less (or no) genetic
material to future generations ... therefore no evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Populations without reproductive material do not evolve.

---

Populations WITH reproductive material might NOT evolve.Natural Selection is NOT Evolution.Evolution progresses (at the level of the species) only where
variations in a population lead to an increased chance of survival
for some individuals over others.I'll try again::Selection occurs when an organism is better able to survive its
environment.When an organism reproduces selection has already ocurred.
Before the reproduction event.Reproduction allows the beneficial adaptations to be passed to
offspring ... and so powers evolution.With reproduction alone, and no natural selection, there would
be no evolution.BUT there could be reproduction WITHOUT natural selection.

quote:

---

In asexual lineages, for instance, all other things being equal all subsequent generations will be completely identical to the parent. In the absence of selection pressures operating on the individual organism, there can be no evolution. ONLY when certain traits provide a net survival advantage - some organisms preferentially surviving to pass on their genetic heritage - can evolution occur.

---

As far as I can see, you are defining survival in terms of reproduction again. Surviving=reproduce. Surviving can then be defined as the changes in the chances of reproduction of an individual. If that's what you mean then I don't have a problem with that. But again, if you would define surviving in terms of staying alive, or in terms of selfpreservation in stead of reproduction, then that would make "your" theory of Natural Selection false, or meaningless. It is much meaningless to look at how long any organism lives, especially when you know that death is sure to come pretty soon for each and everyone of those organisms.It has been relatively easy for zoo's to keep creatures alive for as long as they are alive in the wild, or even longer, but it has proved much harder to get the creatures in the zoo to reproduce. Just to show again that there is a real difference between looking at organisms in terms of reproducing and looking at them in terms of staying alive.

quote:

---

Not if all the organisms in a population are genetically identical - as can occur in some asexual lineages (for example pure lab strains of bacteria). In this instance, the death of one - or a million - individuals has no evolutionary effect because it doesn't effect the gene pool of the population as a whole - they're all identical.

---

I think you are right here. My point was to say that evolution can happen within a generation.I don't understand how you can in your first post say that selection denotes the action of the environment on the chances of reproduction, and then defend Peter saying that selection is the action of the environment on the chances of survival/staying alive.You say that I confuse the levels, and that's true, I confuse them all the time and have to correct myself all the time. But I don't see how my confusing the levels, relates to my basic question if selection should be defined as acting on the chances of reproduction of an individual, or acting on the chances of survival, or some combination of survival and reproduction.I have not actually seen any reason at all in any of your posts, and of Peter and others, why you use the term survival. I have given several reasons why it is false, or at least deceptive, and I've given a narrowed definition of survival in terms of reproduction, which was rejected.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamsu writes to Quetzal:

---

I don't understand how you can in your first post say that selection denotes the action of the environment on the chances of reproduction, and then defend Peter saying that selection is the action of the environment on the chances of survival/staying alive.

---

Not everyone is going to define everything the same exact way. Peter puts a slightly different spin on things by viewing selection solely in terms of survival, then projecting it's impact upon evolution in terms of reproduction. This is from Peter's Message 24:

Peter writes:

---

Yes, organisms do die ... what I was trying to point out is that natural selection would still be seen with non-reproducing individuals in a population.

​

Those that suit the environment would survive, those that didn't would die ... THAT is natural selection whether they breed or not.

​

Natural selection only powers evolution if reproduction DOES occur.

​

Reproduction is the link between natural selection at the level of the individual and evolution at the level of the species.

---

While others of us might not define our terms in quite this way and so would explain things a little differently, overall it seems self-consistent and quite clear. There's no need to become hung up on minor definitional differences, especially when the meaning is pretty clear.--Percy

Percy: I've gone back over this thread now a couple of times in order to try and puzzle out where the difficulty lies. I have read both my and Peter's responses to Syamasu, and have come to the conclusion that there is no functional difference between our explanations. Part of the problem, no doubt, is that both Peter and I have tried unsuccessfully to explain NS at least half-a-dozen different ways each in an effort to get through to Syamasu. The ONLY difference of opinion we touched on was from Peter's message 14,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

​

I'm not entirely sure it would be deemed Natural Selection when
one is considering the competition of two species within the
same environmental niche.

---

I pointed out in a subsequent post that interspecific competition is one of the selection pressures on an organism and hence part and parcel of NS. That is the ONLY difference (besides approach) between our attempts at description.In the face of Syamasu's continued misunderstanding, and my seeming inability to make things clear to him, I don't see the utility in continuing this discussion. Sorry. I appreciate your efforts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I think you are right here. My point was to say that evolution can happen within a generation.

---

What do you mean by 'within a generation' ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I don't understand how you can in your first post say that selection denotes the action of the environment on the chances of reproduction, and then defend Peter saying that selection is the action of the environment on the chances of survival/staying alive.

---

This wasn't directed at me, but ....Selection affects the 'Chances of Reproduction'.If you do not survive, your chance of reproduction is NIL.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

You say that I confuse the levels, and that's true, I confuse them all the time and have to correct myself all the time. But I don't see how my confusing the levels, relates to my basic question if selection should be defined as acting on the chances of reproduction of an individual, or acting on the chances of survival, or some combination of survival and reproduction.

---

The answer to your question is contained in the phrase
'Chances of reproduction'.The fittest animal in a niche still might NOT breed (maybe
it's really ugly to other's of its kind), but if it survives
longer ... or is the only breeding male/female left, it will
breed.It's fittness for the environment allows it to survive better,
and increases its chance of breeding.Suppose::Any individual within a population can breed once per year.Any individual can breed for 8 years during its life.Some trait exist in some individuals which allow them to live longer
than those without the trait.Those without the trait die before reaching the end of their breeding
life.Result::Those with the trait live for the whole breeding life and
so produce 8 offspring.Those without the trait survive less than their breeding life
and so produce fewer than 8 offspring.There are MORE individuals WITH the trait in generation 2 than in
generation 1.This is repeated for generation 3, etc., etc., ...The ability to survive increases the PROBABILITY of reproduction.That does not mean that natural selection IS reproduction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I have not actually seen any reason at all in any of your posts, and of Peter and others, why you use the term survival. I have given several reasons why it is false, or at least deceptive, and I've given a narrowed definition of survival in terms of reproduction, which was rejected.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Consider Artifical Selection (perhaps in dog breeding).The breeder decides on a trait (say coat length) that is desireable.The breeder then selects only those puppies which exhibit longer
coat length, and disposes of the rest (humanely of course ...
perhaps passing them on to others as pets )In order to perpetuate the desireable trait the breeder then
mates pairs of these.Amongst the puppies some have short fur, and are discarded (removed
from the breeding pool) and the process starts over with the new
generation.The SELECTION happens independent of the REPRODUCTION.The TRAIT is SELECTED FOR.Perpetuation of the TRAIT comes about via REPRODUCTION and
is a separate event.If the breeder chooses to stop breeding after 5 generations,
and has all of his remaining animals nuetered ... his population
still shows the SELECTED for trait, but there is no reproduction.Instead of a breeder we have environmental pressures, and instead
if selling off the unwanted we have dieing (sp?) off of the
unfit.Some unfit individuals will still breed, but over time they
will produce fewer and fewer offspring as their numbers
decrease due to Natural Selection.[Added as an afterthought]There are traits which are selected for on aesthetic
grounds.e.g. The peacock with the best tail feathers is more likely
to be accepted by a mate, and so, over time, peacock tails
become more and more splendid.It's another environmental factor determining chance of breeding,
but if splendid tail feathers got you killed young, the females
would still breed with the males that were left.Survival is the key to being selected for.

​

[This message has been edited by Peter, 06-11-2002]