Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   Are there evolutionary reasons for reproduction?
adelpit346
Junior Member (Idle past 5100 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 04-05-2010


Message 61 of 136 (555055)
04-12-2010 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by bluescat48
04-10-2010 12:47 AM


the words can be read
that is evidence
for until i had written them
you had never imagined them nor heard any other man speak them
iamnothing0
JESUsISTHeLORd1amen
Edited by adelpit346, : substitute b for th

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by bluescat48, posted 04-10-2010 12:47 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Parasomnium, posted 04-12-2010 2:53 AM adelpit346 has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 62 of 136 (555062)
04-12-2010 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by adelpit346
04-12-2010 1:13 AM


Topic
adelpit346, how does anything you have written here so far relate to the topic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by adelpit346, posted 04-12-2010 1:13 AM adelpit346 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Coyote, posted 04-12-2010 12:17 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 63 of 136 (555145)
04-12-2010 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Parasomnium
04-12-2010 2:53 AM


Re: Topic
I think from these posts we have seen we can understand the wisdom of the saying, "Please don't feed the troll."

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Parasomnium, posted 04-12-2010 2:53 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 64 of 136 (555150)
04-12-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by MrQ
04-11-2010 5:20 AM


Good analogy - Evolution = Gravity
Your analogy between Evolution and Gravity is a good one, but I don't think you're using it correctly.
This is how I see the analogy lining up:
Idea - Gravity
Basic Description - Objects with mass attract one another
Reason - ??
Idea - Evolution
Basic Description - The change in biological species over generations due to imperfect reproduction
Reason - ??
MrQ writes:
Asteroid doesn't hit the earth not because it chooses to hit the earth. But everything in universe has reason behind it. The reason for asteroid hitting the earth is gravity. You remove that and no asteroid will even bother coming this way!
What you said - Reason for asteroid hitting the earth = Gravity
Analogy - Reason for having different species in different environments = Evolution
But, as you see, this does not give us a reason for having Gravity as it equally does not give us a reason for having Evolution.
If you think there is a reason for Gravity, please explain:
What is the purpose behind having objects with mass attract one another?
Science cannot answer this question either. We can explain how objects with mass attract one another with some very precise equations. But, objectively (scientifically), asking why this is so doesn't make any sense. Purpose is a subjective idea created by the human imagination. You can't expect the natural world to conform to human imagination.
Everything that happens ultimately needs a reason or preconditions to happen.
This statement of yours is not necessarily correct. Some things happen without reason or preconditions. For example: Gravity. Gravity exists without a reason or preconditions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by MrQ, posted 04-11-2010 5:20 AM MrQ has not replied

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 65 of 136 (555409)
04-13-2010 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by MrQ
04-10-2010 6:09 AM


I still believe 'survival of ....' is a better term. Reproduction doesn't mean anything if death rate is higher.
That's what I was trying to imply with differential reproduction. And what I really should have said was differential reproductive success. That implies not only that offspring are produced (in greater proportion to other individuals) but also that they live to reproduce as well.
Also I know 'survival of individual' is wrong as that single successful individual will die anyway. I guess the right word would be 'survival of trait'. Anybody?
What ends up "surviving" are individual genes, or even, a single allele of a gene. They are the units of inheritance and the only unit that is continually copied through time. The fate of each gene, is of course, tied up with the other genes in the individual, so sometimes it can be hard to separate the success or failure of one gene from another, but in the grand scheme of things, that's what's going on. Therefore, adaptive evolution happens at the scale of the population through natural selection acting at the scale of the individual which determines which genes will continue to the next generation.

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by MrQ, posted 04-10-2010 6:09 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by MrQ, posted 04-13-2010 1:28 PM Stagamancer has seen this message but not replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 66 of 136 (555411)
04-13-2010 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Stagamancer
04-13-2010 1:24 PM


That's what I was trying to imply with differential reproduction. And what I really should have said was differential reproductive success. That implies not only that offspring are produced (in greater proportion to other individuals) but also that they live to reproduce as well.
Exactly! I guess 'differential reproduction' by itself is confusing. I mentioned 'differential population growth' which is what exactly happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Stagamancer, posted 04-13-2010 1:24 PM Stagamancer has seen this message but not replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 67 of 136 (555415)
04-13-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by AZPaul3
04-11-2010 7:34 PM


Death may or may not confer a reproductive advantage. It depends on whether death comes before or after reproductive age. Other traits may or may not convey reproductive advantage without impacting lifespan. Greater fecundity at an early age out performs lesser fecundity over a longer life.
Lifespan may have an impact but is not the key. Reproductive differential, by whatever means it is achieved, is the key.
So you accept that death in some cases can provide reproductive advantage.
The idea is to use a name that can cover almost all the cases with no extra exceptions. That's why I think death should be taken into consideration as a force that can make a difference. 'differential population growth' includes both reproduction and also death so it is more complete.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by AZPaul3, posted 04-11-2010 7:34 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by AZPaul3, posted 04-14-2010 12:04 AM MrQ has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 136 (555430)
04-13-2010 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by MrQ
04-10-2010 1:21 PM


Ok ok! Let's add it and see what happens!
Original:
Y= G(t)+R(t)-D(t)+...
We name the second reproduction parameter as g(t) now lets as add it:
Y= G(t)+g(t)+R(t)-D(t)
Now we have T(t)=G(t)+g(t) as the two reproductions are summable so formula becomes:
Y=T(t)+R(t)-D(t)
Speaking as a mathematician, I should like to say that the only practical purpose of mathematics is to make our thoughts more precise. You are abusing it to make your thoughts more obscure and more pretentious.
I would add that even if there was a role for equations in such a basic discussion of evolution (which there isn't) then there is absolutely no way that they would look anything like that.
Just try to say, in plain English, what you want to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by MrQ, posted 04-10-2010 1:21 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by MrQ, posted 04-13-2010 2:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 69 of 136 (555434)
04-13-2010 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
04-13-2010 2:30 PM


I would add that even if there was a role for equations in such a basic discussion of evolution (which there isn't) then there is absolutely no way that they would look anything like that.
Just try to say, in plain English, what you want to say.
Well I tried then I resorted to use math as well. I thought it would help and it did. You see that this issue didn't come up any more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-13-2010 2:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2010 12:16 AM MrQ has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 70 of 136 (555489)
04-14-2010 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by MrQ
04-13-2010 1:33 PM


So you accept that death in some cases can provide reproductive advantage.
Yes, of course. But your insistence that:
quote:
Therefore both reproduction and variations are working together to achieve only and one only final goal of longer existence of each species.
Is quite wrong.
The idea is to use a name that can cover almost all the cases with no extra exceptions. That's why I think death should be taken into consideration as a force that can make a difference. 'differential population growth' includes both reproduction and also death so it is more complete.
There already is a name and it is already complete. It covers not almost all but in fact all scenarios. It is called "differential reproduction." This mechanism, however it is achieved (your death scenarios, sexual selection, any and all other natural selections), is the ultimate key to species diversity and the pace of speciation.
That is a broad statement and the details of the various mechanisms are complex, but until you appreciate this one over arching principle the details will mean nothing.
"Longer existence" for a species means nothing for evolution compared to the reproductive differential that causes diversity, speciation and extinction.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : Added concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by MrQ, posted 04-13-2010 1:33 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by MrQ, posted 04-14-2010 1:47 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 136 (555490)
04-14-2010 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by MrQ
04-13-2010 2:41 PM


Well I tried then I resorted to use math as well.
No you didn't. You used (or, more precisely, abused) mathematical notation. You did not use math. I'll let you know if you ever do.
I thought it would help and it did.
No.
You see that this issue didn't come up any more.
That is not true either. Or why am I telling you how wrong you are? Why did the post in which you came up with this pseudo-mathematical gibberish attract four hostile responses, only one of which was me telling you to stop pretending to do math?
Obviously your pretend math did not settle the issue.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by MrQ, posted 04-13-2010 2:41 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by MrQ, posted 04-14-2010 1:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 72 of 136 (555498)
04-14-2010 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr Adequate
04-14-2010 12:16 AM


No you didn't. You used (or, more precisely, abused) mathematical notation. You did not use math. I'll let you know if you ever do.
Speaking as a mathematician, I should like to say that the only practical purpose of mathematics is to make our thoughts more precise. You are abusing it to make your thoughts more obscure and more pretentious.
I couldn't agree with you more on your first statement that I didn't use mathematics but only used mathematical notation. Therefore, I don't believe your second comment is relevant. But I think Mathematical notation is relevant here as I wanted to find out what exactly is the target in evolutionary process considering all the forces that are involved. At first everybody was saying there is no target confusing the matter with a purposeful goal of some mind. I clarified it by these gibberish as you call it that what I merely mean is simple maximization or minimization of a function. I finally got proper answer from AZ3Paul of what that ultimate target is. We just have some disagreements over the naming and underlying principles of it.
Ultimately, if you had some patience you would see that there will be a great role for these gibberish. If there was in fact a ready made simple understandable mathematical equation for the main forces involved in a simple format it would have made everyone's life easier. In fact when I investigated later I found plenty of material on mathematical modeling. For example GA Genetic Algorithms as you can see is very similar to what we worked out here. We summarized all the forces as Reproduction, Genetics, Variations and Death(which still we are discussing). If you go through this link you will find that we were more or less on track and I was going to polish the original equation after we finalized the forces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2010 12:16 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2010 2:04 AM MrQ has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 73 of 136 (555502)
04-14-2010 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by AZPaul3
04-14-2010 12:04 AM


Is quite wrong.
I accept that my original statement was not accurate that's why I continuously corrected it. My whole goal is to finish my diagram specially the last bit of it which we got stuck in. I am not here to prove anything. I am here to learn. I didn't claim that I know biology. That's why as we progress I correct the original statements and move forward.
There already is a name and it is already complete. It covers not almost all but in fact all scenarios. It is called "differential reproduction." This mechanism, however it is achieved (your death scenarios, sexual selection, any and all other natural selections), is the ultimate key to species diversity and the pace of speciation.
Tell me just where in the notation 'differential reproduction' my death scenarios fit? What this means to me is the difference in the reproduction rate between two changed and unchanged species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by AZPaul3, posted 04-14-2010 12:04 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by AZPaul3, posted 04-14-2010 1:14 PM MrQ has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 74 of 136 (555505)
04-14-2010 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by MrQ
04-14-2010 1:31 AM


I couldn't agree with you more on your first statement that I didn't use mathematics but only used mathematical notation. Therefore, I don't believe your second comment is relevant. But I think Mathematical notation is relevant here as I wanted to find out what exactly is the target in evolutionary process considering all the forces that are involved. At first everybody was saying there is no target confusing the matter with a purposeful goal of some mind. I clarified it by these gibberish as you call it that what I merely mean is simple maximization or minimization of a function. I finally got proper answer from AZ3Paul of what that ultimate target is. We just have some disagreements over the naming and underlying principles of it.
Ultimately, if you had some patience you would see that there will be a great role for these gibberish. If there was in fact a ready made simple understandable mathematical equation for the main forces involved in a simple format it would have made everyone's life easier. In fact when I investigated later I found plenty of material on mathematical modeling. For example GA Genetic Algorithms as you can see is very similar to what we worked out here. We summarized all the forces as Reproduction, Genetics, Variations and Death(which still we are discussing). If you go through this link you will find that we were more or less on track and I was going to polish the original equation after we finalized the forces.
To summarize: you're totally wrong, but just let me wait a while and one of these days you'll be so right.
I may have skipped one or two of the finer details, but then so have you, for example all of them.
Your equation does not need "polishing". It needs you to tear it to pieces which you should then jump up and down on and spit on. It's hopeless.
Incidentally, what do you mean by your use of the word "we"? Are you some sort of European monarch, or what do you mean to imply by this usage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by MrQ, posted 04-14-2010 1:31 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by MrQ, posted 04-14-2010 2:22 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 75 of 136 (555507)
04-14-2010 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dr Adequate
04-14-2010 2:04 AM


Your equation does not need "polishing". It needs you to tear it to pieces which you should then jump up and down on and spit on. It's hopeless.
Why do you think it is hopeless?! Even if we resort to tear it into peaces, I would be happy and call it progress!
Incidentally, what do you mean by your use of the word "we"? Are you some sort of European monarch, or what do you mean to imply by this usage?
'We' stands for the whole community of people who participated ACTIVELY and POSITIVELY in this topic. Therefore, it certainly excludes you which means you shouldn't get offended! So even if I were a monarch I wouldn't have sovereignty over you! As a result you can let your territorial feelings rest in peace now!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2010 2:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2010 3:04 AM MrQ has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024