|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution and complexity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Does anyone here (besides me) no what a warrant is in a logical argument? Some of us know that "know" is not spelled "no." That is a no-no. Some of us also understand the difference between "Truth-preservation" models and "warrant-preservation" models. Some of us even know that you are just shovelin' shit and are clueless of the topic. A few of us even followed the Intutionists over the years which is also totally irrelevant to anything in this topic. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Simonsays writes: I think Percy thinks he has a warrant... You're using the word "warrant" in a way no one here is familiar with. Here's the definition of warrant from Answers.com:
war·rant n.
Which of these definitions are you using?
...with his thermal equilibrium (potential energy) model. But I will show in my coming reply to him where I think he misses the mark. The thermal equilibrium example of a cup of coffee and its surroundings was intended as an explanatory analogy (not a "warrant") to evolutionary stasis, where a population is in equilibrium with its environment. If you don't find the analogy helpful then we'll continue seeking an explanation that works for you. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Simonsays Junior Member (Idle past 6105 days) Posts: 29 From: Ca., U.S.A. Joined: |
quote: Yes, Dr Adequate that's technically true... just as no answer is technically an answer. Although I think most people would find no answer an unsatisfactory answer. As do I with my honest request for a warrant.I can't see how increased selection pressure could ever lead to stasis (equilibrium). To me this is an example of a supposed effect without a cause. As the saying goes,"[i]sho' me the money."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
No dwise1. What you haven't written is a warrant. You know ... What I asked you for in my last reply. Without a warrant to connect your proposition to your conclusion you do have a nonsequitor. Again I ask you to present one.(print out the words and/or sentences in your past message/s that constitute your warrant!) You know, it really would help if you didn't use arcane language. Dammit, Jim, I'm a programmer, not a philosopher or a lawyer (or whatever field you're drawing your jargon from)! The only use of the noun, "warrant", that we've seen has been in and about the field of law enforcement. We're more familiar with the verb, "warrant", from which I'm trying to decipher your meaning. Please note that I'm not the only one wondering just what you're going on about. It would really help if you would try to communicate it to us in a coherent manner and in standard English.
dwise1 writes: The thermos analogy is from an old joke where a dim-witted individual says it's the most wonderous invention because it keeps hot stuff hot and cold stuff cold, but how does it know the difference? The full extent of the analogy is that the same mechanism just operates the same in both cases; it doesn't need to know anything. The thermos does not need to know whether it contains hot liquid or cold liquid, because its mechanism of preventing the transfer of heat into or out of the thermos bottle has the seeming contradictory effect of keeping hot liquids hot and cold liquids cold ... This sounds like a statement a student of mine made years ago. although, he was just very young, not dim-witted. He commented on how unlucky it was that the tennis balls kept going into the puddles from the recent rain. I said that it wasn't luck. The balls are there for the same reason the water was. (Was it raining tennis balls ?) No, it's just gravity. They both stop at the nearest low points of the court. You miss the mark. What I was using that analogy for was to describe something that produces opposite and even contradictory results just by doing the same thing. Your example has the same result being produced. A better form of your example would be an area that the water flooded and then subsided, leaving debris distributed both at the high-water mark and at the lowest point. Same mechanism resulted in different results, but despite the different results the mechanism was still the same. Same as with the thermos. Now, consider a voltage regulator, which operates by a negative feedback loop. It has a set-point which is the desired output voltage that is to be maintained. When the voltage is not at that set-point, then the regulator drives it towards that set-point. When the voltage is at the set-point, then the regulator keeps it there. Guess what. The regulator is operating in exactly the same manner -- it's doing nothing different -- both when it's changing the voltage and when it's keeping the voltage at stasis. The regulation mechanism is exactly the same in both cases. Sure, we can describe it in terms of the regulator being in different states, but it is still operating exactly the same in those different states; it doesn't change what it's doing. And the only thing that is keeping that voltage in stasis is the regulator continuing to perform its function. In the case of the voltage regulator, the only way to keep the voltage constant, AKA "in stasis", is for the regulator to be actively operating. If, once the voltage is in stasis, the regulator were to suddenly cease functioning altogether, then the voltage would no longer remain at its set-point, but rather it would drift away from that set-point. That is somewhat the model that I'm following, except that we can't really identify an explicit negative feedback loop. Also, my understanding of evolution is that it's the observed results of how life works. Populations consist of individuals who are very similar to each other, though a bit different, some more different than others. Some of these individuals though not all, in conjunction with others, reproduce off-spring who are very similiar to their parents, though a bit different. Then some, but not all, of these off-spring, in conjunction with others, produce the next generation of off-spring who are very similar to their parents, though a bit different. That is how life works. I visualize the population as a bell curve with many of the individuals clustering about a mean, or average, and the rest differing by different degrees from that mean -- I trust that we all have some feel for a bell-curve distribution. The production of off-spring would initially increase the amplitude and width of the distribution, but then survival issues would trim it back down. Those who are better adapted would be more likely to survive and to contribute to the next round of reproduction; I visualize that as meaning that individuals in different parts of the bell-curve distribution would have differing probabilities of surviving and reproducing. At that point, I hypothesize that for that particular environment there would be some ideal phenotype that would be best adapted to that environment. That ideal would act as the set-point. The members of the population who are closest to that ideal would have the greatest probability of surviving and reproducing and producing off-spring who are also better-adapted and so their genes would be better represented in the next generation. This would shift the mean of the new generation in their direction. Now, here's where that thermos analogy and the voltage regulator analogy come into play. Does this shifting of the population mean result in change or in stasis? It depends on where the population mean is currently relative to the set-point. If the population mean is away from that ideal mean, then the population mean will shift towards that ideal, resulting in change. If the population mean is already at that ideal mean, then it will lock onto the point and not move, AKA "stasis". Please note that it is the exact same processes, life doing what life naturally does, which can result either in change or in stasis. Life's not doing anything different, but it's just doing the same thing in both cases. Now, selective pressure. I visualize that as affecting the width of the bell curve. The more selective pressure there is, the tighter the requirements for survival are. When the population is at its ideal (please note that in reality there are many such "ideal" means, most of them "good enough" means since good enough will still enable a population to survive), then those individuals who have the highest probability of surviving and reproducing will be those at the population mean already and so the next generation's population mean will pretty much stay at the same point. If the selective pressure is high, then the population will have a narrower distribution -- the curve will be narrower -- and the population mean will track the "well-adapted" set-point more tightly. Thus selective pressure will keep a population in stasis. Now consider what would happen to a population in stasis if selective pressure were removed. All individuals in the population would have roughly equal probability of surviving and reproducing. The width of the distribution would increase as greater variability is tolerated. And the population mean will no longer have to track the "well-adapted" set-point, so the population mean will start to drift. It will no longer be held in stasis. Consider a naval analogy. If the ship is laying at anchor, it may shift a bit, but it will remain attached to that anchor which is attached to the sea bottom. It's not moving; it's in stasis. Hoist the anchor and the ship will start to drift. It's no longer in stasis; it's drifting. Does that help any?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
If an animal is prey to a fast predator then any change that reduces the prey's speed is under intense selective pressure and those changes can not spread in the population.
If the prey animal lives in a warmer climate that is starting to cool then increased body fat would be another answer to the new selective pressure of the new environment. However, this would slow the prey down and the predator selective pressure will maintain the body form of the prey. This is an example of one selection mechanism remaining the same and another changing. The result may be extinction but if not some characteristics of the animal must be maintained. Another form of intense selective pressure is any constant environment. Over time an animal becomes more and more finely tuned to this environment. Then any change is moving from the local optimum that has been achieved. The constant environment supplies the selective pressure and stasis must be maintained. Note that this is a local optimum. Accidents of history establish the current situation and may exclude "more optimum" solutions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
SimonSays writes:
Some of us know that "know" is not spelled "no." That is a no-no. Does anyone here (besides me) no what a warrant is in a logical argument? Well, that blows my hypothesis that he's a non-native speaker of English. Foreigners may have odd phrasing and use the wrong words (and insist on using the exact same wrong words repeatedly when asked to rephrase), but they at least know how to spell those wrong words that they're using. It takes a native speaker to really screw up, such as writing "know" as "no".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2303 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
I'm assuming this has something to do with the term warrant used in connection to a logic statement.
Stephen Toulmin - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Which is why no one (except maybe jar) knew what he was talking about.
The term warrant seems to be, in philosophy, a pretty idiosyncratic idea:
quote: Toulmin's work seems to be of interest mainly in rhetoric and communications. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Simonsays Junior Member (Idle past 6105 days) Posts: 29 From: Ca., U.S.A. Joined: |
quote:And some of us know what a typo is. Also, as I have mentioned in a past post: 1. I'm under time pressure: a.)Home computer: periodically drops into power save mode losing text,when it works at all. (safe mode) b.)Library Comp.: limited to 1 hr., minus the time checking and replying to my tennis lesson and personal e-mails. 2.) I'm an extremely slow typer.(pick peck)3.) I haven't done much posting and am new to coding (dB/HTML) 4.) I Don't always have time to spell check For the above reasons you should not be surprised if I occasionally have a typo or punctuation problem.
quote: quote: There are, I'm sure, a lot of things I do not know. Just as there are a lot of things I do know. I never claimed to be all knowing. I will however look up these terms, time permitting. I'm not adverse to learning new things.
quote: Have you ever heard of the term unwarranted conclusion ? (ie,a not warranted conclusion,a conclusion with no warrant to support it). If not, see the above quote...It's a good example of one. You have no idea what I do or do not know, have or have not read. I've noticed that True Christians/Creationists seem to have this uncanny ability to just know things.(unfettered by fact and with little or no evidence).Unquestioned Truth is not truth at all... It's merely dogma. Edited by Simonsays, : dB code error. Edited by Simonsays, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Have you ever heard of the term unwarranted conclusion(ie,a not warranted conclusion,a conclusion with no warrant to support it). If not, see the above quote...It's a good example of one. You have no idea what I do or do not know, have or have not read. I've noticed that True Christians/Creationists seem to have this uncanny ability to just know things.(unfettered by fact and with little or no evidence). Unquestioned Truth is not truth at all... It's merely dogma. Huh? LOL You really don't understand the term Warrant in a logical construction do you. Presumptuous of you. LOL And what does the rest of your post have to do with the topic? If you actually have a point related to the thread, why not just bring it up. Don't try to baffle us with bullshit, some of us have been shoveling it far longer than you. What exactly is it about dwise1's post that you disagree with? If you think he is jumping to an unwarranted conclusion, explain exactly why you believe that is so. Step through your support and present your best argument for your position. Stop trying to peddle unrelated jargon. Where's the beef? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Does anyone here (besides me) no what a warrant is in a logical argument? I had the best scores in the class in my Intro to Logic undergraduate class, and I have no idea what you're talking about. A logical argument (or a "syllogism") has premises and a conclusion. I've never heard of a "warrant" being a part of that. I think I've heard the term in competitive debate; but that venue has a certain rigid structure that arguments are supposed to follow. That's not really how it works here. Valid arguments traditionally: 1) Expose fallacious reasoning in the opponents argument, or2) Support one's own position with evidence from scientific sources. I think Percy thinks he has a warrant with his thermal equilibrium (potential energy) model. I don't think any of us know what you're talking about. It would be better for you to refute Dwise's argument by showing his premises don't support his conclusion, or that the evidence he's used is methodologically invalid, superceded by more recent research, or irrelevant - rather than concentrating on the supposed absence of "warrants", whatever that means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BMG Member (Idle past 209 days) Posts: 357 From: Southwestern U.S. Joined: |
You're using the word "warrant" in a way no one here is familiar with. He might be using the word as is used in the book The Critical Edge: "...We agreed to use the term warrant to refer to an unexpressed premise that states a general, law-like relationship between an argument's data and conclusion".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
This *is* a very interesing question.
quote: I am not quite certain that "the answer" is an'argument' against evolution. But then I am not quite sure what you have denoted with the word "evolution" here. One of the defining features of behavior that has enabled me to focus on reptiles and amphibians OTHER THAN -- fish, or birds or mammals, and thus become open to a thought about form-making and translation in space, taught as evolution in the schools, has been the relation of dumb and dumber of herps and fish relative to the warm-blooded types. Fish seem unblievable less smart("intelligent") than reptiles or even frogs and all of these a couple of SATs short of birds when not mammals under test. While displaying snakes in public, the misperception of this often came *up* to me, in comments made by on lookers who would say, "How cute!" or whom could be found reaching out to pet the cold-blooded creature. These are things I would find more proper and existing for hamsters and cats or ferrets, not toads nor turtles nor heaven forbid, fish. This can be more objectively observed by watching the eyes and body motion of creatures as an artifical environment, man-made, is rotated in the creatures visual fields or worse yet by poking the eyes of the creatures. Reptile eyes will often move with the environmental changes and even frogs will reposition their whole bodies often to such changes. Fish seem much more 'defensive'/reactive to the same stimulii and tend to move their whole body away from such man-made alterations. If a fish eye is touched however it does not seem to turn in the opposite direction. It almost seems like fish have "out of body experiences" to say it like an "on-looker". I have never found any use of emotions and feelings when dealing with cold-bloods, sure, lots of practical things and utilitarian directions but not empathy etc which many mammal lovers proclaim. For me, this kind of behavior observability (you should note that making observation of salamanders poping their heads to produce sounds etc simply went as little but the moving of leaves in the air when I reported WHAT I SAW to my family) in an increasing vernacular scale of complexity specifies THE direction that slow and accumulative taught evolution has traditionally claimed to go in, at least historically along with "great chain of being" subsequently criticized. So I DO see these as "degrees" of complexity because there are seemingly 'quatum differences' of this and invertebrate behavior. And as soon as one talks about uni-cells and the even yet again (possible) different order of magnitude of viruses vs bacteria if you wanted the argument to go against large changes rather than small I still do not see that "the answer" is against evolution necessarily. Arguing across gaps is a lot harder both ways.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote:As soon as one does this, (and I responded to Parasominum on this on EVC earlier) and this is something Gould approves of, one is permitted to use just like IQ can not be captured by a single NUMBER, to use the notion of 'number' any way one can in bio-theory. I think Mayr's failure to notice that not every use of number is typological or or essentialistic depends on whether one takes Fisher's large population number size as depending on population of birds or not. Most Reptiles/amphibians do not have large randomish breeding populations like ornithologists observe but rather can format guilds fairly locally. At stake is Skipper’s opinion(The Persistence of the R.A. Fisher-Sewall-Wright Controversyhttp://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/...1/skipper_controversy.pdf ), “Generalizing Williams’ principle of parsimony here results in something like the following: If the evolution of populations can be explained adequately via a theory that postulates a small economy of entities and processes, then there is no need to invoke a theory with a larger economy of entities and processes. In Williams’ case, group selection and groups themselves are additional evolutionary processes and entities that are not needed to explain the evolution of traits. ” (We can take up the case of using Williams' opinion as canonical in this thread if you would like: http://EvC Forum: Does the Intelligent Deisgner Favour Genes Over 'Individuals'? -->EvC Forum: Does the Intelligent Deisgner Favour Genes Over 'Individuals'? )Gould contends that logically the larger “economy” exists but there have been no attempts to make a finite list of the entities and processes themselves. This continues the thought I began to "skectch" here: http://EvC Forum: Criticizing neo-Darwinism -->EvC Forum: Criticizing neo-Darwinism While Coyne said(see Skipper page 9), "adaptations whose fixation requires some genetic drift are often prevented from spreading by barriers to gene flow" fails to incorporate Croizat's notion of character recombination. Also reverse information flow macrothermodynamically can theoretically enable one to assemble complex adaptations whose constituent parts arise via peak shifts in different demes. Quote Gladyshev. This information if it exists could be acquired via Panbiogeographic vertex analysis. The difficulty of establishing motion through valleys by drift depends on separating ++ from >> 1-D symmetry. Phenomenological thermodynamics seems to be the only discipline able to delineate the entities that can be categorized into these symmetry classes. Provine’s recent claims that SBT does not exist in nature is simply failure to develop the necessary bio-math and thermodynamics for the “phase transition” thought. Fisher’s theory which permits the lumping of epistatic interaction with a nonheritbale environmental variable can not always capture the reverse info flow under Gladsyhev’s law. If this reverse info flow around barriers during speciation also informs Gould’s “logic” of hierarchy then SBT may be “the general” theory of translation in space and form-making against Coyne’s attitude and NOT simply one of relative frequency of occurrence. This would be because genes and atoms would be thinkable together rather than apart. The population genetics domain would become homogenous to the heterogeneity of atomism not a heterogenous theortical structure of relative frequencies of existence figured by the current heterodox infusion of philosophy into biology. “Complex epistasis and the statistical importance of epistatic terms” of Conyne depend on three item analysis of the hierarchy Two-locus epistasis is a partition instead. There exists “adaptive oversight” when existing adaptions are argued against origins of adaptive novelty” This is why Gould had two kinds of adaptiaton in a supposed larger logic . Here enumeration of processes vs entities is necessary. Only macrothermo provides a means to separate this visually. They become projected into Wright’s adaptive landscape as gene combinations per individual are related to gene frequencies per population given the SAME thermostats. This shows that unless Fishers ideas IS related directly to thermodynamics rather than in analogy atomism will trump geneism. Fisher’s position on average genic effects seems to be against the minimization effect of Gladyshev’s law which CHANGES this average overtime. Fisher would be wrong when gladsyev law changes phylogeny through ontogeny via smaller population sizes and strong selection of particular thermostat parameters. Thus there is little PHYSICAL reason to hold Fisher’s opinion in particular atomic aggregates. The non-heritable environmental component BECOMES heritable and the extension of entropy properly to niche construction (not with Maxwell’s demon and information entropy) shows this to be a case. Williams (Adaptation and Natural Selection) does not seem to have deterministically conceived that that life before his ideas of modifiers and DNA could occur himself. He simply says no one has related it to plasticity as a biotic adaptation and discuss organic vs biotic expression where NEO-Darwinism phases the conversation. Either Gould’s “logic” is a mere subtly adding nothing more than titles or Williams is mistaken when generalized. Both Goud’s position and creationism make up to a larger set of entities and process, not less. That was just a problem of forcing all to attain to the same horizon without determining it individually. This is how I determine my horizon.
Dr. Ebach,
The next step is to demonstrate hierarchical extraction of ”trees’ that Cantor’s continuous motion being a catastrophe set in Cantor’s discontinuous space where the whole set of catastrophes becomes such that multiple locomotions across adaptive landscapes are possible in the higher ordered representations where through the hierarchical structures are derived. Derive them . Thank you very much for this information. I was following up on a link athttp://digitaltaxonomy.infobio.net/index.php?Softwarehylogenetics after reading "Hierarchical Representation of Hypotheses of Homology" that Dr. Morrone provided on SEBA. I am very excited about that paper because I feel that the difficulty I had at Cornell, a dispute over what kind of statistics and when to use it/them, while doing a project on the natural history of the worm snake Carphophis, has finally been addressed. Malte Ebach Hello, The SB1981 site no longer exists. Please use the Biogeography Portal,a list server that you can sign up to on http://www.sebasite.org 3item is also no longer available. A far better program Nelson05 isout that does three-item analysis and subtree analysis. The program is free. Please email Rene Zarageta or Nat Cao for a free copy. Please let me know if you need any further information. Cheers,Malte. --Malte C. Ebach Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem Freie Universitt Berlin Knigin-Luise-Str. 6-8 D-14191 Berlin Ph: + 49 30 838 50179Fax: + 49 30 841 72954 Email: mcebach@gmail.com *****************************************************The Systematic and Evolutionary Biogeographical Association (SEBA) Please visit our website: http://www.sebasite.org ***************************************************** Well, with probably days of thought on Gould’s work, I am coming to the suspicion that Gould has made an unwarranted conclusion about “stasis”, particularly in his claims about non-fractality of allometry. I am becoming more confident that by a proper and long continued thought about the differential effects of “homeostasis” and “epistasis” one can reconstruct Gould’s conception of the what is simply added onto old brains to imagine an evolved one, without necessitating any thought about cladogenic stasis (the proper geological realm of Gould’s supposed contribution). If that is a true conclusion, then Gould’s query about “invalidation” vs “exception” under what was already “consistent” with genetics narrates the response to what can *ever* be made out of a comparison of entropy and fitness. I will edit back in Gould's comparision of Fisher's statments about fitness and entropy (possibly updating what I said hereEvC Forum: Evolution or Devolution? http://EvC Forum: Evolution or Devolution? -->EvC Forum: Evolution or Devolution? http://EvC Forum: Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05) -->EvC Forum: Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05) ). It appears that Coyne used the word "phase" in a sense not compatible with mine. The only requirement seems to be to be "consistent" with Genetics. What I am developing in my own timehtttp://http://www.axiompanbiog.com is the writing of fitness as within an entropic plenum, thus turning Fisher's question to Wright (about what has become the shifting balance theory) if he, Fisher, might have missed some "adaptive oversight" from an analogy between physics and biology INTO a homology, biogeographically. This IS NOT evolution as entropy mind you. It should all be doable linearly. The only way to get a an actual diagram of genetic diversity successionally seems to have an energy converter mechanism that displays the gene combinations both among individuals and diversely among the genes populationally not only up and down and single "adaptive peak" but simultaneously among peaks. This seems to be what Williams had in mind when discussing the "origin" of life in his book on Adapations in the 60s. The reality is that this is as hard to visualize as 4-D space/time was for Rucker. I think and think I sometimes do but not ver often. I think the information is available to do all of this. I am not sure that "more pressure" MUST always move the demescape tangentially however. This much I have not visualized. That starts to depend on what homeostasis, epistasis may support sans punctuated equilibrium stasis, also not necessarily with the red queen. The result of this analysis, is that the word "synthesis" has not been continued as Kant depended on, and that "core" Darwinism does not survive the theory that will explain multiple deme peaks in one physical reality. Thus one could consult the first link in this post and the diagram at the end of that articleClick for full size image to the affect that a "mirror" refraction was misportrayed by the words of the text where your issue of tagential vs vertical plurivocaldeme motion was "colored" by a computer. As I said, quote:http://EvC Forum: Fitness: Hueristic or Fundamental to Biology? -->EvC Forum: Fitness: Hueristic or Fundamental to Biology? We need the instrument for this. An airconditioner this is not. Edited by Brad McFall, : corrected link Edited by Brad McFall, : added link picture corrected for figure and ground
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pesto Member (Idle past 5588 days) Posts: 63 From: Chicago, IL Joined: |
I can't see how increased selection pressure could ever lead to stasis (equilibrium). To me this is an example of a supposed effect without a cause. As the saying goes,"sho' me the money."
Let me give you a hypothetical situation to try and explain this. We have a population of common brown skroats. Common brown skroats spend most of their time hanging out on tree trunks. There is a fairly common mutation among skroats that will turn the offspring of a brown skroat day-glo orange. The general population, being brown, is rather hard to see when sitting on the brown bark of a tree, but one of the mutated day-glo orange skroats can be seen from quite a distance. As such, the day-glo orange mutants are seen and devoured very quickly, leaving behind their brown siblings to reproduce and make more brown skroats. So long as the color of the bark of the tree does not change, the selective pressure will act to keep skroats the brown color that most of them are. Selective pressure reinforcing stasis, or zero change. If the selective pressure of brown skroats having a survival advantage gets stronger, it will only reinforce the stasis that much more.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024