Rrhain writes:
That's just it. We can't really know that except in the most mundane of circumstances.
well fine, could you give me very simple and controlled example of verification of an allele being predicted to propagate in a group of organisms?
(please don't read this as "ha, you can't provide an example so you're wrong". I think it is possible and feasible to make this kind of prediction in this kind of situation, but i wasn't able to find any examples.)
i'm not asking for hard fast rules that take into account every single situation and are right 100% of the time. i want general rules that are more often (statistically so) correct than incorrect.
we won't know which way the water falls every single time, but if we examine the hand we can guess that it will flow between the 2nd and 3rd knuckle more often than not.
Rrhain writes:
Your argument essentially boils down to the claim that because we don't know everything, then we don't know anything.
if you've gotten this impression from me then either i haven't been clear, or you've misunderstood me.
can we make a connection between alleles that are more likely to propagate (predicted before hand) and the allele actually propagating in a species?
with out predictions like this then there is not a proven connection between natural selection* and changes in allele frequencies.
so my point is if there are no predictions/verifications then it can not be said that natural selection is a mechanism that causes alleles to become more common in a species.
just like with out predictions and verifications there is no such thing as inherently lucky people, or bad breaks, and so luck and bad breaks can not be invoked to be the cause of anything.
*i'm not sure, but i think natural selection includes things like sexual selection, and geographic isolation; in that WHATEVER the situation/enviornment, some animals are more likely to produce more offspring, and other are more likely to produce less offspring.