|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwinist language | |||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Big deal. I don't think any of us here are strict Darwinists. Darwin is not the final word on anything. Think about this: Would you approach an astrophysicist and criticise cosmology because Newton didn't incorporate relativity? That would be silly, yes? Newton did what he could with what he had, and worked out formulas which are still used very frequently. Other people build on it and modify it. The same has happened with Darwin's theories, yet you insist on reaching back 150+ years and harping on Darwin's book as if it were scripture. It isn't.
quote: I have never seen a definition, except those proposed by the uninformed, in which this is not made clear.
quote: This is silly. Walk into a field of flowers and you'll find more variation than you can record in a year.
quote: No need to imagine.
quote: You are right. Failing to reproduce doesn't make most critters die early, but this is your misunderstanding. A biologist wouldn't make this claim, except in particular circumstances.
quote: And eventual speciation. This fits perfectly well into standard evolutionary theory.
quote: Fine.
quote: No, Syamsu, for some reason it forces YOU to focus on extinction and neglect the other possibilities.
quote: What? Reproduction of a different sort? What might that be?
quote: This is again YOUR problem. Biologists don't ignore this stuff. You insist they do. Sorry, but YOU have a mental block here, not us. quoteThe logic of a general theory of reproduction says that: since allorganisms die, only through continued reproduction are there any organisms left in the world.][/quote] ?????? And this is profound ?????
quote: What you suggest is impossible. How do calculate the chances of reproduction without considering the biology -- the variation-- and the environment -- the competition-- of the organism?
quote: That was a long way round to get right back to the standard ToE.
quote: Sure it is-- not enough variation to adapt to the onslaught of human activity.
quote: What is the point?
quote: I recall that many of us did just this several months ago and we were called racists and liars. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/courses.hp/biol606/OldLecs/Lecture2001.01.McAdam.html As a result, populations at equilibrium are predicted to have no genetic variation in fitness itself and therefore heritabilities (proportion of total phenotypic variation which is due to additive genetic variation) equal to zero. quote: I don't see how one could deny it, if the proposal is made clear. However, it may not be very useful as virtualy no populations have zero variation.
quote: Respectfully, I don't think you realize what a non-issue this is. The problem is a problem you have projected onto the scientific comunity at large. But in reality, it is your problem. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Syamsu, can a population of clones go extinct? Can they all die when conditions change? If yes, then selection is working on a population without variation. What I cited for you was a paper defining 'populations at equilibrium' -- that is populations which have no significant variation and as such NS works on the group as a whole.
quote: Why do you read it this way? It makes no sense. You can select one variant, two variants, all variants or no variants. In all cases, it is selection. Why do you think that if a population becomes extremely uniform it is no longer subject to environmental pressures? This is what you imply in saying that NS does not apply to populations with no variation.
quote: And continues with: "degrading forces such as mutation, migration and changes in the environment tend to decrease fitness."
quote: Yes, but only when you cut the sentence in half and present only part of the idea. The 'degrading forces' are integral to NS.
quote: You've said very close to the same thing in both questions. I'd go with the second though.
quote: Only for you.
quote: In your version, there is no comparison-- can be no comparison. Without comparison there are no patterns and thus no theories and no information. You version is "Animal A mates and reproduces." THAT IS IT. Its pointless. You have a problem saying that frog A is better suited to its pond than frog B is suited to the same pond, but that is the way it works. Sorry. It isn't social Darwinism. It is 'some animals freeze to death while others do not. Those that do not freeze can be reasonably assumed to have been better adapted to the cold and are also the one who pass along there genes. Dead critters do not pass along genes.' ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: What do you think is doing the selection? Is there a force of NS similar to, say, gravity or magnetism? Nope. The forces doing the selection are the 'degrading' forces listed in the article-- weather, predation, etc. The use of the term 'degrading forces' must mean something like 'forces detrimental to the current population' or 'forces for which the species is not currently adapted.'
quote: What? Perhaps you are talking about the simple formulation of NS. NS functions on individuals so in that respect reproduction, perhaps, isn't important. But if you want to study more than one generation, then reproduction is quite fundamentally important. [quoe]With the complex formulation you would come to know frog A is "better" then frog B, but you don't actually come to know how either frog lives, you just come to know about a *single* trait that by coincedence is varying.[/quote] For most of the fossil record we won't ever know much about how the critters lived, but for living organisms it would be silly to ignore such things. How often do you think scientists study one trait and then move on? One trait at a time in many cases, but that isn't the same thing.
quote: We've been through this countless times. Do things not stop being affected by the environment, disease and predation when variation reaches zero? SO far you have not answered this question. It is critical. If things are still affected, then NS still applies. It is very very simple.
quote: Stasis is the norm. So what? True or false this makes no difference.
quote: ummmm..... what kind of variation is there? Different-from-the-other-guy-- that kind of variation.
quote: Such would be included. These would be the individuals who don't survive.
quote: Bingo.
quote: Biologists likely rarely have a reason to even consider it, this is not the same as ignorance. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]Again, the article was unclear on this point[/quote][/b] The article is an example not an argument.
quote: Then ask them if things still die when variation reaches zero.
quote: I suspect this has a lot to do with semantics.
quote: Why can the varables for variation be '1'? Plug '1' into the formula instead of two, or three or four? The math still works. I don't see the problem.
quote: No it doesn't.
quote: Why do you think someone would not consider the whole organism? People may study one trait at a time, but nowhere is the study of one trait deemed all there is.
quote: Because very rarely will you have a population without variation.
quote: Can you understand this selection in a non-variation way? You have 1) no selection 2) selection of all equally or 3) selection among variations. Cases 1) and 2) are the same as case 3) but with the variable for the number of variations set to 1. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Because you then most likely have differential success rates among variants.
quote: What?
quote: Why do you think biologists do not consider photosynthesis as being subject to selection? Photosynthesis is the primary energy source for almost everything alive on Earth. Why would it not be considered? Honestly, Syamsu, I am having a hard time taking you seriously. A couple of minutes on Google and I found countless articles discussing photosynthesis and selection. Do you research your claims?
quote: ummm..... so, of two animals, one can have zero offspring and the other can have one; but this is incompatible with the first animal having one baby and the second animal having two? It makes no sense.
quote: You might notice that evolution DOES NOT WORK on individuals. Selection works on individuals, but evolution works on whole populations. The next generation is made up of the offspring of the survivors from the previous generation. You can't avoid that fact.
quote: Is this not precisely what you have been complaining about?
quote: Sounds just like the ToE.
quote: LOL.... sounds just like the ToE. This isn't much of a revolution you are planning.
quote: Right. Just like in the ToE. It strikes me that this is exactly what you have been complaining about. You state that 'the rest is environment to that organism.' Do you notice that 'the rest' includes that organism's kinsmen? This places them in competition, potentially at least. This is what offends you about the ToE. [qutoe]In it's evolution usage you would with the simple theory look at either a changed organism (mutant/recombinant), or look to each individual existent variant again when the environment changed, and see how it's chances of reproduction are.[/quote] And? .... sounds just like the ToE.
quote: I don't know what to make of this post. Here you are proposing all of the things to which you object in the ToE. It makes no sense. You complain about the ToE, then reconstruct it. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: There aren't any articles describing the conversion of light and various materials into biologically usable materials? Maybe you don't realize that there are several TYPES of photosynthesis? Maybe you don't realize that photosynthetic systems vary just like leg length or hair color?
quote: What exactly do you want? You want NS incorporated into a description of the actual chemical process of photosynthesis? Why? HOW?
quote: Forget? Why would I need to remember? Why is this relevant? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Nor did I say this.
quote: Are you sure this is what you mean? Because you seem to be turning 180 degrees.
quote: Give an example. Make up something. How can one write about photosynthesis and selection in the manner you desire?
quote: Are you listening to yourself? You want to define SELECTION in a manner that does not involve selection. To select, you must have objects from which to select and those objects must have variations or there is no selection involved. You just grab one. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: No. I am just not being very clear. NS works just fine whether you have variation or not because things like the weather and predation do the 'selecting.' You seem to want to define NS in such a way that variation is NEVER a factor. And I hate to break it to you, but variation is almost always a factor.
quote: Just like in the current theory of NS...
quote: ummmm..... NS will always select on a form/variant even if that form is the same in all individuals-- ie a clone population. This quip about individuals not forms is silly. What does the environment effect if not the BODIES -- ie. forms -- of the individuals? This is what I was aiming at above. You seem to want to define NS in such a way that form is not a factor at all. Now you seem to have abstracted selection to the point that it functions of the meta-physical individual instead of the physical animal. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: What?
quote: What is the point?
quote: Ya think....
photosynthetic variation - Google Search Did you even look? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Syamsu, are you insane?
The light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (positive selection pressure). If variation is a factor then it will show up in the environment somewhere as a factor. These are your words. NOTICE THE LAST SENTENCE? It is ok for the variation to be a 'factor' but not for it to be named? This is ridiculous.
quote: The 'way you describe' includes variation as a factor. Do you need your own words quoted back to you again? Assume you could find a clone population of photosynthesizers the result of NS would be that the whole population lives or that the whole population dies. Not terribly interesting. And I challenge you to find such a population for scientists to study. I bet you can't. Virtually all populations have variants. If you have variants, NS involves variants. You can't avoid this. Thus, what you find in the journals will also concern variants.
quote: Do individuals in a clone population still die? I have lost count of the number of times I have asked this, but you have not once answered it that I remember. Do you think scientists do not realize that clone populations still succumb to bad weather? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, but I'm not. Can you deal with being pathologically stubborn and selectively blind?
quote: Actually, I went to Google looking for something that fit the definition you provided when I asked you what exactly you were looking for in reguard to photosynthesis and NS. This definition included the possibility of variation. But you have ignored that bit though I pointed it out to you lost post. You have a habit of doing that. You ignore truly stunning amounts of information. I ask you again, what exactly do you want? Light hits chloroplast and.... what? And the chloroplast does its thing? That is about it. End of story.
quote: But varying reproduction rates in comparison to other organisms is not ok? This is absurd. You can't even keep variation out of your own definitions. It is you who has not thought this through. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Apparently you cannot.
quote: Sure, Syamsu, a chemist or a bio-chemist may be quite interested but it tells us nothing about evolution. And evolution explaining evolution is the point of NS. This is what is so weird. You want to define NS is such a way that it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution requires the comparison of indivuduals, not just the study of one individual, even if it turns out that the individuals are clones.
quote: LOL..... it is reasonable to trivialize a key element of evolution? Please note, evolution requires variation. NS does not. The two are different but intimately related.
quote: We started out talking about NS and I agree that there is no need for variation. Now you are saying that the ToE does not require variation and on this you are dead wrong.
quote: The varying reproductive success rates are the key features of evolution. You cannot eliminate it. Explain change in a population without using variation. I dare you. Pretend you have a population of trolls and an sudden ice age occurs. Describe the change in the population without using variation. If you can't do it, drop the argument. You have to tell me why some survive and some don't and you will be forced into the answer that some where different and that difference allowed them to survive. Period. If there are no differences they all live or they all die. If they all live there IS NO CHANGE IN THE SPECIES. No change means no evolution by definition. If they all die, well the species goes extinct and you still have no evolution. Anxiously awaiting your answer. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: What?
quote: This isn't close to the minimum requirement for speciation. You have a few mutations. You are not a new species. Everybody has mutations. Speciation is a lot more complicated than that.
quote: I sort-of doubt that one mutation could create a species.
quote: Gradual change is not necessary? hmmm... rapid change -- ie. PE-- can and does happen but you seem to be pushing the 'hopeful monster' view. You actually believe that new species are created in one fell swoop with one mutation? As for the trait not becoming dominant in the ancestor population, with whom does your hopeful monster mate? You can't found a new species with one individual, assuming the critter reproducies sexually.
quote: So you now allow that NS can apply to clone populations but it is 'deceptive' ?
quote: Yes, it would. We would no longer be talking about the same population but two seperate populations.
quote: Have you not been complaining about individuals competing with one another? Now this is what you prefer? This is very curious. I hope you do not vaccilate once again as this is indeed progress. You are quibbling over the competitive/replacement bits. You are still talking about differential reproduction rates. [qutoe]I'm not sure differential reproductive success has much of any merit at all. It's just like the theory of differential buildinglength, or differential lighintensity of stars, it's just a measurement standardization, not a mechanism.[/QUOTE] Who said it was a mechanism? It is just a measurement standard. It is something we use to describe population change. It isn't some kind of force like magnetism. Environmental factors and mutation are the real mechanisms. The 'mechanism' of differential reproductive success is just shorthand for a whole slew of causal relationships. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: You are flogging a dead horse here, bud.
quote: And if you include a critter's compatriots in the definition of 'environment' -- which you must-- then you have the NS as it stands. You travel great distances to restate natural selection.
quote: Are the individuals in a clone population still subject to the forces of their environment? Why will you not answer this? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024