|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Percy (& Syamsu),
I gotta say that I side with Syamsu on this one. Recant while there's still time! You're right, of course, so I'll rephrase.
Syamsu writes: camouflage contributes to reproduction (a positive selective factor), and that those with camouflage diminish the chance of reproduction of those that don't have camouflage (a negative selective factor). Syamsu, So you would agree that the environment is imposing differential reproductive success within the guppy population, then? It seems difficult to avoid, given you have admitted that the population in it's entirety has two sub-populations that are affecting each others reproductive chances. This process requires two things, variation, & differential fitness values within the population in question. Mark ------------------"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Ahh, Percy. I fear your willingness to see the good in everyone, no matter how obscured, has led you astray in this instance. Please note the exact phrasing:
Syamasu writes:
I think the point here is to say that camouflage contributes to reproduction (a positive selective factor), and that those with camouflage diminish the chance of reproduction of those that don't have camouflage (a negative selective factor). Once again our amigo has simply restated his old misunderstanding of selection "in the absence of competition". The fact that one element of a population exhibits crypsis does NOT imply that the fact they are hidden directly effects the reproductive success of the part of the population that doesn't have camouflage. See, our friend is claiming that camouflage in one group is a selection factor against the other group. Wrong again. Even if we squinch our eyes and intepret very generously, this is an incorrect statement. Que sopresa.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hah. It is not at all a misrepresentation, Syamasu. I invite your attention to your post #60 in the old "Evolution for Drummachine" thread, where you explicitly state - following a lengthy and detailed explanation of carrying capacity from me in post #59 - that carrying capacity has no relevance to real-world populations and that the formulation of logistic growth is erroneous.
Try again - you're starting to forget the bs you've spread in previous messages in previous threads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
That is just more representation of the same sort. You exclude situations where the population is not at carryingcapacity, where the carryingcapacity does not apply. Again, you are excluding many things by bringing in all the requirements to apply selection, you are invalidating all sorts of biology, like looking at individuals, or looking at populations which are not at carryingcapacity.
It's even more curious that you do this because before you stated that fundamentally selection applies individually, and the standard formulation only includes variation because of the happenstance that there always is variation in a population. So it's not that you are suggesting these phenomena to be investigated separately from selection, you are in effect invalidating the investigation of the phenomena of populations which are not at carryingcapacity, and the relationship of individual organisms to the environment in terms of reproduction. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Must be a full moon or something..Percy claims Sy wrote a coherent post???
Well, this one at least goes back to standard. Ok Sy...explain why a population has to be at carrying capacity for resource competition to occur.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
lol - lost again, eh Syamasu? From my post #59 in that thread:
Quetzal writes:
Okay, now it gets complicated. Obviously, this simplified formula doesn’t apply to real-world populations, since it assumes that resources, environment, etc are not factors. Are you familiar with the term "maximum carrying capacity" (I’ll ignore effective carrying capacity for this discussion, since that is particular to a specific environment and is based on limiting factors inherent in that specific ecosystem)? Carrying capacity is the maximum number of individuals (population size) that the environment can support over a relatively long period of time. The carrying capacity of any environment is determined by the limiting factors that exist in that environment. Any environment with fewer resources will have a lower carrying capacity than one that has greater resources for the population under study. Effectively, carrying capacity places an upper ceiling on the number of individuals a particular ecosystem can support. How carrying capacity for a given ecosystem is derived is complex, but can basically be described as density dependent limiting factors. Density dependent factors basically reflect the fact that no ecosystem has unlimited resources — at some point the amount of food available to each individual is more and more limited as population increases, there are fewer nesting or den sites to go around, activity by natural enemies increases, risk of disease increases etc. There are other factors that can effect population grown, known as density independent factors which include things like weather, climate change, season habitat variation, etc — factors that effect the whole population regardless of numbers of individuals in the population. I then showed mathematically how, in a real-world population, as the population approaches the carrying capacity of a particular habitat, the population growth slows, then either stabilizes or reverses. I excluded nothing. I showed quite explicitly how populations are effected by density dependent factors in the environment. Remembering that the post was related to showing empirical and mathematic support for the first two assumptions from the OP in that thread: "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." I would say that your total inability to even understand the explanation given in post #59, let alone your utter incapability of addressing - let alone substantively responding to or rebutting - the points raised merely demonstrates once again (for any who remain unconvinced) your complete and total cluelessness when it comes to any subject in biology. [This message has been edited by Quetzal, 08-19-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
The point here is that you and Wounded King seek to include carryingcapicity in the standard formulation of Natural Selection, in stead of treating a population at carryingcapacity as a complicating factor to Natural Selection.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Show specifically where Quetzal or Wounded King have created a complication for natural selection involving the concept of carrying capacity...the more your statements are challenged the shorter, more incoherent, and vague your posts are becoming.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
In trying to derive the formulation of Natural Selection from a computersimulation of NS, Wounded King began to talk about including carryingcapacity. It's just some posts before this. That Wounded King includes carryingcapacity is because that seems to be the only way to make comparing variants functional in a simulation.
I don't see any serious challenge, it's either huff'n'puff about other's superior knowledge of biology, or huff'n'puff about my lack of knowledge of biology. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
you are projecting Sy...I asked you to point out specifically where Quetzal and WK were wrong and you belly ache about the fact that you don't know what you are talking about...tough..educate yourself.
The carrying capacity debate started because both WK and Quetzal made fun of you for not understanding the concept...the issue that you avoided addressing completely was from WK: quote: So now you have two pieces of homework 1) to show specifically where Quetzal is wrong 2) to address this post from WK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
What am I projecting?
Where Quetzal is wrong is to include things like carryingcapacity in the standardformulation of Natural Selection, because that would exclude situations where populations are not at carryingcapacity from the scope of the theory of Natural Selection. I've answered that post of Wounded King but since I can't find the comparison of variants, or lack of comparison in the code, it's still not clear. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
You are projecting your insecurities on the rest of us.
Could you now point out where Quetzal says that natural selection can only occur in a population at carrying capacity? Here is your answer to WK's post
quote: For someone who is so afraid that individuals are different and adamantly maintain such a stance in the face of logic and evidence claiming you have no clue is a bit of a lame answer...after having had time to reflect do you have a more coherent answer to WK's post?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
As topics go past the 300 message point, there has been a tendency for technical problems and thread damage.
Time to close this one down. Adminnemooseus ------------------Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to Change in Moderation? or too fast closure of threads |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024