Evolution for Drummachine

Since you apparently missed the explanation the first time around, I thought I'd make a thread just for you, reposting my explanation from post 123 of the "Let Us Reason Together" thread. After all, it's not really fair to ask you to comment on a post in a closed thread.Okay, drum. To expand a bit on what Taz and Schraf et al have explained about evolution, I thought I'd repost something I put on evcforum a while back.
First off, there are some very basic statements that, for evolution to be true, must be true. All provide potential pathways for falsification. All lend themselves to development of testable hypotheses. All have (scientifically) predictive value: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.3. Organisms show variation in characteristics or traits that influence their success in this struggle for existence. Individuals within a population vary from one another in many traits.4. Offspring tend to resemble parents, including in characters that influence success in the struggle to survive and reproduce.5. Parents possessing certain traits that enable them to survive and reproduce will contribute disproportionately to the offspring that make up the next generation.6. To the extent that offspring resemble their parents, the population in the next generation will consist of a higher proportion of individuals that possess whatever adaptation enabled their parents to survive and reproduce.Next, you need to understand (and remember) that natural selection leading to evolution is simply the differential reproduction of genotypes. There are two basic assumptions for natural selection to work:1. There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness, visual acuity.2. There must be differential survival and reproduction associated with the possession of that trait.Heritable variation occurs by mutational changes in an organism’s DNA (any change in the hereditary message — base pair substitution or insertion/deletion of new bases) leading to the creation of new genetic material AND/OR creation of new genetic combinations through transposition (changing the position of a gene changes what it does), recombination (through cross-over during meosis), or genetic reshuffling (through sexual reproduction). Without getting too deep into it, selection can only act on the phenotype. A gene can be present, but not expressed (e.g. a recessive allele). Only homozygous recessives will show the trait and be selected for or against. In addition, selection acts on the whole organism (a conspicuously-colored moth, for ex, can have all sorts of wonderful genes, but if a bird nails that moth, its entire genotype is gone). And finally, selection doesn’t have to cause changes. It also can maintain the status quo.Therefore, the general predictions of evolution are:1. Given heritable variation over time, new species can and do arise.
2. Over sufficiently long time periods, due to various mechanisms surviving populations will vary sufficiently from the parent population to constitute new taxa.Does this help your understanding?Please comment specifically on what has been posted here. Don't drag in "information" or "kinds" unless you're prepared to define and then defend the definitions (wow, that was awkward). The above is a simplified version of how evolution by natural selection works. Please show that you understood it.You are free to argue with any of the points, or request additional explanation as desired. However, preaching will be ignored.

Your logic is faulty. Even if just as small portion of offspring would reproduce then they would still eventually overrun the earth. The reason the organisms don't overrun the earth is because they all die. Not a portion, but all must die in order for them to not eventually overrun the earth.For the rest of it, your formulation of Natural Selection is a big mess!regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As to the rest of it, let's see you formulate Natural Selection better than Quetzal.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 03-27-2003]

Your logic is faulty. Even if just as small portion of offspring would reproduce then they would still eventually overrun the earth.M: There is NO logic in what you state here. The fact that you and I and Quetzal are here posting demonstrates that a small portion of offspring have reproduced..and humans (nor any other organism) has "overrun" the earth (whatever that means). In every generation, a small portion reproduces (the effective population). The majority do not contribute to the next generation.S: The reason the organisms don't overrun the earth is because they all die.M: Not really. One could completely overpopulate the earth without having all organisms die...so still no logic from you in sight.S: Not a portion, but all must die in order for them to not eventually overrun the earth.M: Populations cannot exceed their resources i.e. food. When they do a portion of the population starves etc. until the total population is again compatible with the resources...or the population crashes out and goes extinct. So your last sentence is also patently false.Your turn Quetzal

See the cut variation... thread, in the free for all forum. It's not allowed to turn this thread into another discussion about my definition of Natural Selection, since there already exist about 10 such (very repetitive) threads or more.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Indeed without all organisms dying you could completely overpopulate the earth. That is what I was saying also.You're switching from talking about organisms to talking about populations, as if they were the same thing. They are not.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

S:Indeed without all organisms dying you could completely overpopulate the earth.M: Ok since you and I are not dead that means the earth is completely overpopulated by your logic...show me a population that has died out where there are still individuals...trick question coming...a population is composed of??? or are you going to now claim that overpopulation should actually be called over-individualization?

You're not dead, but you're going to die. Memento morti....To make this clear, first I will make a strawman that is clearly false.- Some organisms die, others organisms don't die.This is false because it is shown as by evidence that all organisms die. Evenso this is a strawman... many Darwinists do actually say similar things like that.- If all organisms reproduced then the earth would be overrun.This is false because we could have (sexually reproducting)organisms reproduce 2 organisms each, then have the parents die, have the offspring reproduce 2, and so on, and the earth would never be overrun, eventhough all organisms in it reproduced.Where the above may be a bit theoretical, there are also realword situations where all organisms in a population do actually reproduce.
To deny it would tend to lead to ignoring such things as seasons, where sometimes there are plenty resources.So all you have done is to prove your prejudice. You focus on situations in Nature where not all organisms can reproduce, and you ignore situations where all can reproduce.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

This is false because we could have (sexually reproducting)organisms reproduce 2 organisms each, then have the parents die, have the offspring reproduce 2, and so on, and the earth would never be overrun, eventhough all organisms in it reproduced.

---

This is the one which is false Syamsu. Species which reproduce in small number per reproductive cycle generally have more reproductive years. For example, Wolves generally have a litter of 3 to 5 pups per mating cycle and have mating expectancies of 5 to 7 years (rough estimate based on memory, I will look up the actual numbers later). If all pups live, even counting the deaths at 7 years reproductive age, there will be thousands of wolves after 20 years. And that is starting with just 2.Now, take spiders which die after mating, if they lay 500 eggs (actually a rather conservative number for some species) then the next year all 500 spiders lay 500 eggs and die, you should be able to get the point.Your statements re: reproduction, population size and resources are just flat out wrong.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Therefore, the general predictions of evolution are:

​

1. Given heritable variation over time, new species can and do arise.
2. Over sufficiently long time periods, due to various mechanisms surviving populations will vary sufficiently from the parent population to constitute new taxa.

​

Does this help your understanding?

---

Actually, no.As I mentioned before in the other thread, #2 above, a general restatement of microbe to man, UNLIKE ALL OTHER LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, cannot be demonstrated in real time.Someone mentioned #2 can be demonstrated from the fossil record. Wrong again. You can only demonstrate your assumptions and therefore complete the circle of circular reasoning.In other words, #2 cannot be demonstrated in the fossil record without first demonstrating such a process of microbe to man is even feasible. And I don:t even need to get into the sport of bashing the evo belief in the rock god, to wit: the belief in the supernatural life giving properties of rocks.I:ll be waiting for the scientific demonstration of trilobytes evolving into man from the fossil record.Or not.

Zephan,Who on earth are you replying to?

quote:

---

As I mentioned before in the other thread, #2 above, a general restatement of microbe to man, UNLIKE ALL OTHER LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, cannot be demonstrated in real time.

---

Show me the Roman Empire in real time. Or string theory, or the electron, or the decay curve of Uranium in its entirety, for that matter.Perhaps science doesn't require things to be panned out in "real time". Perhaps your objection would possess merit if it wasn't a personal caveat?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

So all you have done is to prove your prejudice. You focus on situations in Nature where not all organisms can reproduce, and you ignore situations where all can reproduce.M: And you ignore reality. You should re-read the topic of the thread in the first place. And second, show me a natural population where every single individual in the population contributes to the next generation...and by the way, in applying your second argument, you do realize that even among human populations (most pronounced in the industrialized world) every individual does NOT produce 2 offspring and thus the populations are shrinking drastically...why do you think Japan and Germany are sweating their pension systems so much these days?

Reproduction is adding organisms. It doesn't matter how slow or fast you add, obviously you would still ovverrun the earth if you would only add. Therefore to not overrun the earth you need another descriptive principle to decrease the number of organisms which is death.For the rest you are simply showing prejudice again, ignoring situations where there is a wealth of resources. It's strange that you do so because I thought the latest evolutionary just so stories depended much on there being largely empty environments (empty of competitors) after some mass extinction.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Hi Syamasu,Taz has already addressed this point, but since the sidetrack here developed in response to my OP, I'll take a stab at it as well.Here is the formualation (again) of point one from the OP: Let's take a look at a real organism with which I'm familiar: the Olive Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys oliveacea). Ridley females produce clutches of up to 125 eggs, as many as three nights in a row, for a 35-year reproductive span. That means in a single year, a Ridley can produce 375 live turtles (absent natural selection). In her lifetime, she can produce 13,125 baby turtles. That's one generation. Starting at age 15, the first clutch of 125 turtles ALSO starts reproducing. And so on. Within the lifespans of three generations of Ridleys, the planet would collapse due to the weight of turtles. Do the math.Since it hasn't, there must be something else going on. That something else is natural selection.

What goes on besides reproduction is called death actually, not natural selection. If only 5 out of the 125 reproduced then the planet would collapse after X generations also. Do the math.How about any of you actually addressing my arguments? I already presented counterargument to Taz's argument, so it is wrong for you to refer to Taz's argument without addressing my counterarguments to that.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu