Is Reproductive Success the Gold Standard?

This is a sincere post. Please don't make the oft' justifiable assumption that you've one of those posters that come in pretending to ask questions when they're really just trying to trip up the pros. I'm a plebe, quite literally. I'm bringing it over here so as not to drag a thread off topic.In a post on another thread I made the following two statements:To this I recieved this response from RAZD:I would be under the impression that I fully understand what was meant if I wasn't finding it impossible to suss any contradiction between this and what I said. I don't know how to elaborate on this to actually form a cogent question. Help!Secondly, to kurseu, Wiki is indeed a wonderful friend; I couldn't post without it. Wiki and Google make up 98.7% of my friends. (Yes, I know I've just implied that the remainder of my friends amounts to only 3.9% of an entity or accumulated parts thereof.)My only understanding was that "specialization" (sorry, totally goofed that) is defined by sexual separation (which makes me and Ronda Kalowinski separate species). As bacteria don't have sex . Now I know, thanks.P.S. for Admin: I know this won't make for a whole topic, but I didn't know where to go. Coffee House?Edited by lyx2no, : Confess my unworthiness.Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling and missed wordsEdited by lyx2no, : No reason given.Edited by lyx2no, : Bad math

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Yeah, I blew it in the original. I wasn't sure it would be cricket to correct it in an implied quote. Your arithmetic is correct but your math is wrong.Wiki is one entity and Google is another. Both together comprising 98.7% of my friends. The remaining 1.3% comprises all other friends put together. This final friend must, therefore, be 3.9% of a single entity or 3.9 % of the accumulated parts of a number of entities. If it, too, were a full entity it would be 33⅓% of my friends, and Wiki plus Google could, at best, be 66⅔% of my friends. If a gene is deleterious to reproduction it's failing to meet the gold standard. What I mean by a lack of template is there is not some immutable gene that can't remain changed even if for the better, because there is something in nature that is going to intentionally change it back to meet some ideal. That would amount to a mechanism preventing micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution.This isn't to say there is not some type of correction system for DNA. If I remember correctly there is: It can check itself against the other strand. Correct me or fill me in on this too, if you will.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

I would fully agree that I should have put "genetic perfection" in quotation marks. Had I considered my own post better I would have done so as I did for "excessive". But at the same time I think "pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo" is a bit harsh for a less then formal venue, and better saved for the word-salad boys. I will, nonetheless, take it to heart and let it crush my spirits, Schoolmaster.I meant to imply, and therefore should have said, that all a gene need do to be perfect is get itself preferentially reproduced; that the standard for perfect is simple, not that there is some ideal gene. Rather awkward for a bumper sticker. I had thought, in context, I had expressed that. I was wrong.If the effectiveness of the quotation marks around "excessive" were anything to go by I'm not sure they'd have been a life saver for "perfect".I adopted the "excessive" terminology from those who believe there is a limit as to how far evolution can go based on Biblical notions. If the diminutive quotation marks failed to express my position then clearly my words should have:I'd be a poor champion for that argument as I agree with you.P.S. If I'm one of those word-salad boys, you'll let me know, right?

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Sorry, I was only kidding about the Ronda bit. I'll try to cut that out so as not to cause you unnecessary explanation. Don't let my mum hear that.

quote:

---

Phylogenetic (Cladistic)/ Evolutionary / Darwinian species

​

A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, members may diverge from one another: when such a divergence becomes sufficiently clear, the two populations are regarded as separate species. Subspecies as such are not recognized under this approach; either a population is a phylogenetic species or it is not taxonomically distinguishable.

---

How does one go about making that distinction. Is it one of those "you know it when you see it a gazillion times" things.Asked to quickly; you got it.Incipient: My word for the day.Your model is the model of evolution that I understand. I'm guessing I need give more credence to Percy to be less glib.Thank you

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Sorry for my absence. I was on computer restriction. You clearly know nothing about my mum; she thinks your language was salacious. My mum denies that such a thing is possible before marriage, and being fictitious was not an excuse for Ronda’s boldness. Mum tells me I must select a girl from her village (outside Yala) in Ghana. Whee! I get to marry a cousin. I’m going to catch it for this. I’m not sure what “it” is, yet. “It” refers back to this entire:

quote:

---

Phylogenetic (Cladistic)/ Evolutionary / Darwinian species

​

A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, members may diverge from one another: when such a divergence becomes sufficiently clear, the two populations are regarded as separate species. Subspecies as such are not recognized under this approach; either a population is a phylogenetic species or it is not taxonomically distinguishable.

---

But what does “when such a divergence becomes sufficiently clear” mean? How is “sufficient difference” determined? What do the little, black, horizontal bars in the image represent? Who is John Galt?How does one calculate the 98% similarity with an extinct species? I’m assuming, here, that one looks at some portion of a gene and counts the differences, subtracts them from the portion then divides that buy the portion. So if we don’t have some portion of the genome . what? Are they comparing the ratios of all those little measurements they seem to be continually making with their calipers instead?I’d be more then happy to read up on it at another site if you’d point the way. I wouldn’t want to take up so much of your time.Edited by lyx2no, : Referring to my mum as she three times ” opps!

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Thank you. That was very good. I remember Gould writing something (Panda's Thumb?) along these line about snails, which I believe he worked with.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.