|
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 |
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there more than one definition of natural selection? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
dkv Member (Idle past 5732 days) Posts: 38 Joined: |
He stands right :Although I would like to modify it.
Original defintion is:"Natural selection: The differential contribution of offspring to the next generation by individuals of different genetic types but belonging to the same population." My defintion :Natural selection: The differential random accumulation of characteristics of offsprings in the next generation due to different genetic types belonging to the same population. We can not use words like contribution or by individuals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
We can not use words like contribution or by individuals. We can. Natural selection operates on the phenotype of individuals, whether it is survival, disease, disability or sexual reproduction. Those that survive and reproduce contribute to the genetic composition of the population of the next generation. Those that do not make no genetic contribution. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dkv Member (Idle past 5732 days) Posts: 38 Joined: |
We can. Natural selection operates on the phenotype of individuals, whether it is survival, disease, disability or sexual reproduction.
REP: Thats what is under discussion.What follows is a Little bit of history here and my point of view: The asexually reproductive cell changed the behaviour to sexual for unknown reasons.Asexual reproduction is better for replication algorithmcally. And this is what the genes do. This strategy of change from asexual to sexual carried no inherent intention. We know that there are 4 legged mammals and therefore we can expect the common ancestors to mammals to have 4 legs as well. We do not expect the common ancestor to have 6 legs. But why will any animal need 6 legs where 4 limbs are sufficient. The change in structure leads to genotype changes as well and vice versa. With 6 limbs the species will have to change the behaviour as well ....How to hunt ? How to defend ? How to involve in Sex ? Similarly if the required behvaiour is such that 6 limbs are required then why not? This is the typical need based reasoning which is needed for phenotype stability. Therefore we find a concept of non-random mutation. BUT How is this possible? A radom mechanical (which can be fitted into machine) leads to a non-random and non-mechanical manifestation of selection. This is impossible. All logical constructs are inconsistent and incomplete. Precisely it means a machine can not come out of loops on its own. (e.g loops : This statement is false. ) As a machine can not think.It simply executes the algorithm and the statement can not be answered by any Universal Truth Machine. Therefore if assume random origins then the non-random appearence is due to lack of knowledge. Which means there is flaw in the algorithm of evolution. Therefore we are having this debate. I have a solution for this. The assign a purpose to the evolution of life. All life forms work towards sustainable pleasure. TSP is the backbone of my theory of evolution... So far the theory has explained everything which the Dawkins theory can explain.It may need a sperate thread to discuss. Or you can create a Thread : Do you believe that pleasure is the root cause of evolution ? and we will discuss. ================================================ Those that survive and reproduce contribute to the genetic composition of the population of the next generation. Those that do not make no genetic contribution. REP:As per current theory there can not be any desire to contribute to genetic compostion.(Infact from TSP point of view there is no such desire but even without desire it turns out that phenotype genes will be extra stable.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
Natural selection operates on the phenotype of individuals, whether it is survival, disease, disability or sexual reproduction.
Does NS “operate” on the phenotypes of individuals, like a surgeon who operates on a patient’s liver? Or does it “operate” instead on the reproductive success of populations? NS engages when that success is not uniform across individuals? I think there is a cause-effect relationship to consider here. Is NS a cause or an effect? Neither? Both? Here's how I see it. NS, in and of itself, does not occur at the individual level. NS is about a population’s differential reproductive success. You can’t have evolution occurring in individuals, only in populations. Whatever alters a population’s uniform success in reproduction may have multiple causes”environmental factors, mutation, gene flow”and NS may not always, or not even often, play the lead role in evolution. This issue seems like old dirty laundry to me. Why haven't we cleaned this up? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why is "both" not an appropriate answer? NS selects among individuals. NS has an effect on the population as a result.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
cf wrote:
NS selects among individuals.
crash, I don't think so. I think this notion is a large part of the confusion about what exactly NS is. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dkv Member (Idle past 5732 days) Posts: 38 Joined: |
Here's how I see it. NS, in and of itself, does not occur at the individual level. NS is about a population’s differential reproductive success. You can’t have evolution occurring in individuals, only in populations. Whatever alters a population’s uniform success in reproduction may have multiple causes”environmental factors, mutation, gene flow”and NS may not always, or not even often, play the lead role in evolution.
REP: The local differential success does not add upto the global success. But How is this this possible ?THIS is possible because locally differential can result into failure. The species are unstable ...Differntial can set the Species on suicidal path..Its a matter of one or two genes to annihilate the entire species(due uneven distribution of genetic pools ). It is important to understand that there is nothing(individually or statistically) like "Natural" in the Selection process which can guide the species to success. The current theory of GENE REPLICATION requires non-random selection for the stability of phenotype genes.( 6 limbs to 4 limbs doesnt happen suddenly .. but behavioural changes can take place more quickly... note that some snakes reproduce babies as well and we dont call them mammals ) This non-random selection can not evolve out of any algorithm. (I have posted a thread under proposed topics where I ask whether Knowledge is evolutionary or not?) I explain this stability using my theory of Towards Sustainable Pleasure which explicitly requires stable phenotypes for sustainable pleasure of Group over large period of time. Infact all Group and individuals aim TSP. The sterile soldier bees can be explained using my theory.It explains transition from asexual to sexual. The sexual behaviour of birds can be explained. The wide use of Condoms can be explained, Homosexuality can be explained Early recognition of sexuality can be explained It can also explain diseases like cancer. (due to improper strategy towards collective sustainable pleasure) The theory brings together pyschology and biology. Thoughts and emotions. Gives life a purpose. All you have to do is learn the three words: Towards Sustainbale Pleasure Towards - It is processSustainable - It is a strategy Pleasure (or Happiness)-It is the experience ... Pleasure is a biological state which can also be achieved using drugs.But it may not be sustainable. Therefore all 3 words are important. It is a scientific theory. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
crash, I don't think so. I don't understand why. Tell me where I'm wrong in this example. You have 50 individuals in a population of asexual haploid weebles. 25 are camouflaged via heritable mutations. 25 are bright orange. Color-sighted, visually-oriented predators enter the area. Soon, 20 of the orange weebles have been eaten. Only 5 of the camo weebles have been eaten. The remaining weebles double their number: 40 camo weebles and 10 orange weebles. That's natural selection. It operated on individuals, selecting camo weebles over orange weebles. It had an effect on the gene frequency of the population; the camo gene increased in frequency (from 25 to 40) and the orange gene decreased in frequency (from 25 to 10.) Natural selection operates on individuals; as a result, it shapes populations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What follows is a Little bit of history here and my point of view: The change in structure leads to genotype changes as well and vice versa. Nope. There is no mechanism by which any change in structure can be transmitted back to the genotype. None. This concept -- essentially what is known as Lamarkism -- has already been falsified because of this.
With 6 limbs the species will have to change the behaviour as well ....How to hunt ? How to defend ? How to involve in Sex ? Insects manage it quite well.
This is the typical need based reasoning which is needed for phenotype stability. Need based reasoning is also false. There is no response to "need" in biological evolution, there is only response to ecological changes and opportunities.
Therefore we find a concept of non-random mutation. This too is falsified by genetic research. Mutations are random. Random in where and when they occur. There are mechanisms by which organisms under stress can increase the rates of mutation, but this has no effect on the kinds of mutations that occur.
A radom mechanical (which can be fitted into machine) leads to a non-random and non-mechanical manifestation of selection. This is impossible. All logical constructs are inconsistent and incomplete. Precisely it means a machine can not come out of loops on its own. (e.g loops : This statement is false. ) As a machine can not think.It simply executes the algorithm and the statement can not be answered by any Universal Truth Machine. Sorry, I don't follow what you are trying to say here. Organisms are not machines. Machines don't reproduce and thus aren't affected by natural selection.
I have a solution for this. The assign a purpose to the evolution of life. All life forms work towards sustainable pleasure. TSP is the backbone of my theory of evolution... So far the theory has explained everything which the Dawkins theory can explain.It may need a sperate thread to discuss. Or you can create a Thread : Do you believe that pleasure is the root cause of evolution ? and we will discuss. I suggest a new thread where you lay out what your theory is and how it applies. Most critical would be how you would test the theory against observations to show your theory would have a different objective outcome than biological evolution (whether expressed by Dawkins or Mayr or whoever is irrelevant - it has to measure against the science of biologial evolution). Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.
As per current theory there can not be any desire to contribute to genetic compostion.(Infact from TSP point of view there is no such desire but even without desire it turns out that phenotype genes will be extra stable.) All it takes is reproduction of surviving organisms. Nothing more is needed to account for the evidence. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Does NS “operate” on the phenotypes of individuals, like a surgeon who operates on a patient’s liver? Or does it “operate” instead on the reproductive success of populations? NS engages when that success is not uniform across individuals? When an individual dies the rest of the population is unaffected. When an individual reproduces the rest of the population is unaffected. Natural selection therefore operates on the individual as expressed in the phenotype based on their genotype.
Whatever alters a population’s uniform success in reproduction may have multiple causes”environmental factors, mutation, gene flow”and NS may not always, or not even often, play the lead role in evolution. The effect on the population is the sum of the effects on the individuals, and there is no effect on the population that is then transmitted back to individuals to affect their existence. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
RAZD wrote:
When an individual dies the rest of the population is unaffected. When an individual reproduces the rest of the population is unaffected. Natural selection therefore operates on the individual as expressed in the phenotype based on their genotype.
I simply do not understand that statement.
The effect on the population is the sum of the effects on the individuals,...
So, NS occurs where exactly? In the population or in the individual?
...and there is no effect on the population that is then transmitted back to individuals to affect their existence.
I don't entirely get this. Who ever said that, anyway? All any individual can do to affect evolution by NS is to make gametes and have sex hopefully. Meanwhile, evolution by NS goes on in the population. Indeed, the selection of beneficial alleles in that population is what is really going on, I think. btw: As I'm sure you know, Darwinian evolution by NS was postulated on the Malthusian principle: Populations often produce more individuals than available resources are able to sustain. The whole thing rides on a train called Population. Individuals do not have to go through Door #1 marked "Naturally Selected" or Door #2 marked "Naturally Not Selected" like quiz-show contestants. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
crash:
crash, I like your weebles but I have just addressed this issue in my comments to RAZD in Message 236. I don't understand why. Tell me where I'm wrong in this example...That's natural selection. It operated on individuals, selecting camo weebles over orange weebles. It had an effect on the gene frequency of the population; the camo gene increased in frequency (from 25 to 40) and the orange gene decreased in frequency (from 25 to 10.) Natural selection operates on individuals; as a result, it shapes populations. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
...and there is no effect on the population that is then transmitted back to individuals to affect their existence.
I don't entirely get this. Who ever said that, anyway? That is what you would have to see happen IF natural selection operated on the population.
So, NS occurs where exactly? In the population or in the individual? In the individual. When an individual dies the rest of the population is unaffected. When an individual reproduces the rest of the population is unaffected. Natural selection therefore operates on the individual as expressed in the phenotype based on their genotype.
I simply do not understand that statement. Is your fitness to survive or ability to reproduce affected by the ability of someone across town to to survive or reproduce? Selection is on the individual. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So, NS occurs where exactly? In the population or in the individual? Both. Individuals are selected - and populations are comprised of individuals. Thus, selecting among individuals has an effect on the population.
Individuals do not have to go through Door #1 marked "Naturally Selected" or Door #2 marked "Naturally Not Selected" like quiz-show contestants. The doors they go through are called "lived long enough to reproduce" and "didn't live long enough to reproduce." Natural selection is the force that sorts them through these doors. Everybody who's not currently going through door number 2 is a member of a group called "the population."
The whole thing rides on a train called Population. Try to keep in mind that there's really no such thing as "populations." There's just individuals. We group some of them into populations intellectually, but that's not exactly indicative of physical reality. Theoretically you're a member of the human "population", as is Ana Ng who lives on the other side of the world; in reality, though, you lack any sort of physical connection to Ana Ng. You've never met her. You're only members of the same population in an intellectual sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
So, NS occurs where exactly? In the population or in the individual?
In the individual. You are far better off, IMHO, to let NS have its way with populations than to say that individuals are the ones being selected. Individuals are only the carriers of beneficial, neutral, and harmful alleles. Individuals do not move forward in the course of evolution, but alleles do. Therefore, NS “selects” for the alleles in a population, not individuals. There has never been an individual anything that has successfully evolved into something else. There was never an individual fish that evolved into an individual amphibian. That kind of morphing goes on in populations when their alleles get sorted out. ”HM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024