Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution for Drummachine
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 76 of 88 (35932)
03-31-2003 1:16 PM


Moving This Thread to Free For All
We all have different thresholds for deciding when further effort isn't warranted, so I'm sure some here are not yet convinced of the unlikelihood of a constructive discussion developing between the two points of view currently in play, but I'm going to move this thread to the Free For All forum for the time being. If things improve I'll move it back.

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 77 of 88 (35933)
03-31-2003 1:16 PM


Thread moved here from the Evolution forum.

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 78 of 88 (35947)
03-31-2003 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by nator
03-30-2003 2:11 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Months ago you has the opinion that someone who is not in the field of evolutionism is not allowed to say something about evolutionism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S: I did? When did I do that?
PB: In the days you published my trackrecord.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by nator, posted 03-30-2003 2:11 PM nator has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 79 of 88 (35976)
04-01-2003 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
03-31-2003 9:10 AM


Re: Syamsu-real populations
I think Mammuthus posted something about all organisms in a population of bacteria reproducing.
In my imagined example of waterplants, the populationsize increases from 200 to 2.000.000. Such population explosions are not uncommon, all offspring reproduced. I could further conjecture that there are variants in the population that are adapted to situations of plenty resources (inefficient resource use, but higher reproductionrate), and that there are variants adapted to situations of low resources (efficient resource use, but lower reproductionrate), so that there is differential reproductive success. And while this is all imaginary I feel confident that by the "richness" of Nature there are many populations where at one time or another all offspring reproduce for some time. If I should find just one then your position is shown to be false I guess. Somebody know of a single population where all offspring reproduced, some population explosion of bacteria somehwere?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-31-2003 9:10 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-01-2003 7:40 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 80 of 88 (35979)
04-01-2003 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Syamsu
03-31-2003 12:50 PM


Re: Syamsu-real populations
Are you simply utterly incapable of formulating anything resembling a rational argument?
S: You are a coward because you didn't address resource availability in the context that some reproduce and some didn't.
Q: Here is the mathematical and empirical support for the points made in the OP which show resource availability is subsumed in the statements.
S: You haven't discussed extinctions. You are obviously backtracking.
Q: Here is how extinction fits into the framework.
S: You can discuss extinction, but it just doesn't figure with your statement that not all can reproduce but some can reproduce, which allegedly "must" be true.
No matter that people have addressed every single one of your points. No matter that you've been given peer-reviewed references that address your points. No matter that you have been given detailed discussions that address your points. No matter that multiple attempts have been made to address your points in many different fashions. No matter that you have completely failed to respond to any of these attempts. You continue to asssert that we are cowards, or lying, because we haven't addressed your points!!!
I have come to the conclusion that you are simply insane. Until you come up with a substantive reply - addressing all elements of the discussion you have been provided in numerous posts - you are simply not worth the effort.
Thank you for completely derailing this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Syamsu, posted 03-31-2003 12:50 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Syamsu, posted 04-01-2003 6:42 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 81 of 88 (35992)
04-01-2003 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Quetzal
04-01-2003 2:20 AM


Re: Syamsu-real populations
I'm not asking for sophisticated formula's etc. I'm asking for you to justify your *original* statement. Obviously your original statements are wrong as I've explained numerous times already. Notice that in your later more sophisticated explanations you follow my logic of needing to have a deathrate to stop the earth from overrunning, where in your original you refer to some reproducing and other's not reproducing to not overrun the earth.
"First off, there are some very basic statements that, for evolution to be true, must be true. All provide potential pathways for falsification. All lend themselves to development of testable hypotheses. All have (scientifically) predictive value:
1. If all the offspring that organisms can produce were to survive and reproduce, they would soon overrun the earth.
2. As a consequence, there is competition to survive and reproduce, in which only a few individuals succeed in leaving progeny."
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Quetzal, posted 04-01-2003 2:20 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 82 of 88 (35996)
04-01-2003 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Syamsu
04-01-2003 2:16 AM


Re: Syamsu-real populations
Actually even under ideal fermentation conditions not all bacteria reproduce. I have done everything from straight bacterial fermentations to fed batch (where a bolus of nutrient is added to boost growth and maintain at a minimum a linear, if not logrithmic, growth for a longer period) to chemostats (continuous fermentations where nutrients are added and biomass drawn off to achieve a steady growth state). What you have are a pupulation of which a percentage reproduces at a defined rate. The minimum doubling time for a population of E. coli is about 20 to 30 minutes depending on the strain. And even under perfect conditions not all of them reproduce as I have detected bacterial lysis products (ie dead bacteria) under all defined conditions.
Also, you are dancing around the issue either because you do not want to address it or because you just do not get it. A population will only grow at its maximal rate (whether it is 70% or 99% reproductive success) for a very limited time before it runs into limitations. My example of the wolf's was 20 to 30 years, my example for spiders was even less generations, 1 spider--500 offspring, each produces the same in 10 years-ie 10 generations-you get 9.76 x10^26 spiders, in fact it is generations that count for the passing of beneficial traits. What happens when your theoretical (and impossible) group stops this growth? Generally it depends on the selective pressure and the population size as well as the reproductive isolation of the species sub-populations. Low to mid selective pressure and low reproductive isolation- stasis; mid to high selective pressure and groups of reproductive isolation-speciation. By the way this answers your misreprestation of my post extinction comments as well.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz
Corrected to add missing info.
[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 04-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Syamsu, posted 04-01-2003 2:16 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Syamsu, posted 04-01-2003 9:11 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 83 of 88 (36007)
04-01-2003 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
04-01-2003 7:40 AM


Re: Syamsu-real populations
That you have detected dead bacteria does not neccesarily mean that not all reproduced, since obviously they could have reproduced prior to dying. That's about the 3rd time you made an obvious "mistake".
While it may be uncommon for there to be perfect 100 percent reproduction for some time, when it does occur it would have large impact, so have significant interest. You seem to neglect population explosions that occur after mass extinctions, or in seasons, or when organisms go into different environments etc. You also seem to neglect adaptations that are specifically beneficial in environments of plenty resources. You are still prejudicially focused on limited resources as anyone can tell, just in the same way Darwin and Malthus were 140 years ago.
You should go out and find about the richness of Nature more, Nature doesn't act at all according to the confinements of your prejudicial generalizations.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-01-2003 7:40 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Mammuthus, posted 04-01-2003 9:39 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 84 of 88 (36010)
04-01-2003 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Syamsu
04-01-2003 9:11 AM


Re: Syamsu-real populations
Where did you get the idea that I posted a references stating that all "organims in a bacterial population reproduce" ?
Please actually read the paper and address the actual point I made.
The bacteria were NOT in limited resource yet there was STILL differential reproduction due to variation in fitness when selection was applied...sheesh, are you being dense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Syamsu, posted 04-01-2003 9:11 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Syamsu, posted 04-01-2003 1:26 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 85 of 88 (36017)
04-01-2003 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Mammuthus
04-01-2003 9:39 AM


Re: Syamsu-real populations
I see, they were not limited yet not all reproduced. It's strange that you at the same time insist that you don't ignore population explosions, but also insist that it never happens that all in a population reproduce. It's simply nonsense of course, all because of agreeing with Quetzal that only some organisms can reproduce otherwise the earth will collapse.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Mammuthus, posted 04-01-2003 9:39 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Mammuthus, posted 04-02-2003 2:03 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 86 of 88 (36052)
04-02-2003 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Syamsu
04-01-2003 1:26 PM


Re: Syamsu-real populations
S: It's strange that you at the same time insist that you don't ignore population explosions, but also insist that it never happens that all in a population reproduce.
M: It is more than strange that you think every individual in a population has to reproduce in order for there to be a population explosion...but I am sure you will now provide thousands of examples of this

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Syamsu, posted 04-01-2003 1:26 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Syamsu, posted 04-02-2003 2:34 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 87 of 88 (36054)
04-02-2003 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Mammuthus
04-02-2003 2:03 AM


Re: Syamsu-real populations
I didn't say that all had to reproduce for there to be a population explosion. In an effort at complete ridiculousness Taz said between 70 and 99 percent reproduce. It is omitting that 1 last percent that shows the depraved depths of prejudice. Like a religious rite where you have to offer 1 percent to the gods of Darwinism.
Sorry Mammuthus but despite your joking attitude you don't actually have an argument at all. Any Australian who stood about ankle deep in mice knows the tenet that only some organisms can reproduce to be theoretical miceshit.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Mammuthus, posted 04-02-2003 2:03 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Mammuthus, posted 04-02-2003 3:46 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 88 of 88 (36064)
04-02-2003 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Syamsu
04-02-2003 2:34 AM


Re: Syamsu-real populations
S: I didn't say that all had to reproduce for there to be a population explosion. In an effort at complete ridiculousness Taz said between 70 and 99 percent reproduce. It is omitting that 1 last percent that shows the depraved depths of prejudice. Like a religious rite where you have to offer 1 percent to the gods of Darwinism.
M: Hmmm so you are the advocate for the 30-1 percent that do
not reproduce in a population (according to your distortion of Taz' post)...don't feel to bad for them...they can always masturbate
Fitness would of course equal 0, but hey sometimes it's they effort that counts
S:Sorry Mammuthus but despite your joking attitude you don't actually have an argument at all. Any Australian who stood about ankle deep in mice knows the tenet that only some organisms can reproduce to be theoretical miceshit.
M: Hmmmm you have an interesting view of the habits of Australians...though I would suppose if an Australian were standing ankle deep in mice the mouse shit would not be theortical....in any case thanks for giving me a quote of the day to submit in Quetzal's one liner thread
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 04-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Syamsu, posted 04-02-2003 2:34 AM Syamsu 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