Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
72 online now:
dwise1, nwr, PaulK, ringo, vimesey (5 members, 67 visitors)
Newest Member: Johnny
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 885,078 Year: 2,724/14,102 Month: 389/703 Week: 42/168 Day: 11/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation
John Jones
Junior Member (Idle past 3453 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 08-05-2011


Message 24 of 296 (628017)
08-06-2011 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taq
08-01-2011 6:23 PM


quote I will attempt to demonstrate that the same mechanisms that produce reversions in leuB- organisms will also cause deleterious mutations in very important and vital genes as well as mutations which do not change the fitness of offspring. end quote

You might want to look at your phrase "fitness of offspring". As offspring are, by definition "fit" simply by being there, then "fitness" is not a quality "of" offspring.

If, instead, you argue that success of reproduction of the offspring makes them fit, then i) success of reproduction doesn't necessarily incur advantage to the species, and ii) clearly, if the offspring do not reproduce then the parents reproductive success cannot be regarded as "fitness" or success.

The best option I think is to drop the word "fitness".

Edited by John Jones, : no quote option


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taq, posted 08-01-2011 6:23 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2011 8:26 AM John Jones has responded
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 08-06-2011 9:00 AM John Jones has responded

  
John Jones
Junior Member (Idle past 3453 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 08-05-2011


(2)
Message 30 of 296 (628029)
08-06-2011 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Adequate
08-06-2011 8:26 AM


quote If you don't understand the concept of fitness, that is no reason why biologists should abandon it; that's a sign that you should try harder to understand it.
What is it about this concept that is giving you trouble? unquote

Many disciplines have flags. That the word "fitness" should be meaningless yet purposeful appears to present us with a contradiction.

We can begin to break the contradiction by noting that flags are like mandala's, invocational devices whose meaning is not derived from the context in which they are delivered.

If the flag "fitness" is assumed to be a semantic/syntactical device, that is, with context dependent meaning, the assumption quickly unravels on inspection.

So my advice is to use the flag "fitness" only as a flag - as an inspirational, promotional metaphor aimed at those not familiar with the subject. I don't think biologists should court favour with the "term" fitness. That would be very risky, as my analysis showed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2011 8:26 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 08-06-2011 9:16 AM John Jones has not yet responded

  
John Jones
Junior Member (Idle past 3453 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 08-05-2011


Message 32 of 296 (628032)
08-06-2011 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
08-06-2011 9:00 AM


quote As Dr Adequate implies, fitness has a well-defined meaning in biology. I can see that you're defining a "fit" offspring as one that has survived birth, but in biology fitness is measured by an organisms ability to generate offspring, or in genetic terms, to propagate its genes. Wikipedia has a good article on biological fitness. It actually calls it, and correctly in my view, "a central idea in evolutionary theory," so the odds are small that you're going to persuade evolutionary biologists to abandon the concept. unquote

As you can see from the rest of my initial post, I addressed the reproductive aspect of the "definition". But an excursion into reproductivity doesn't change the often tautologous, and always meaningless use of this term, which, I have argued in the post above this one, is a necessary condition of the "word" being employed as a syntactically disconnected (independent), promotional metaphor - a flag or mandala.

Many disciplines have these flags. For example, psychology uses "disorder", among others.

I wasn't able to follow your instructions for quotes. Do I have to type in a code? How do I easilyiest get or assemble the material that I want to quote?

Edited by John Jones, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 08-06-2011 9:00 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 08-06-2011 9:22 AM John Jones has responded
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 08-06-2011 9:29 AM John Jones has not yet responded

  
John Jones
Junior Member (Idle past 3453 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 08-05-2011


Message 39 of 296 (628119)
08-06-2011 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
08-06-2011 9:22 AM


It isn't a different topic to enquire about the significance of a term that is employed in that topic. It would, rather, seem to be key to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 08-06-2011 9:22 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 08-07-2011 6:35 AM John Jones has not yet responded

  
John Jones
Junior Member (Idle past 3453 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 08-05-2011


Message 40 of 296 (628121)
08-06-2011 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
08-06-2011 9:22 AM


quote
Sounds like a different topic. If you want to discuss biological terminology and the errors therein you might consider proposing a new thread over at Proposed New Topics
unquote

It isn't a different topic to enquire about the significance of a key term in that topic.
It's significance is, rather, key to the whole topic. Surely so.

However, if by "the topic" you mean just the original post, then I agree with you. But the original post had some problems that cast a shadow on its own case, and these needed examining. My examination used an example taken from many other, similar problems in that original post.

We cannot take what we read for granted. A post isn't just factual, it is conceptual, and in the latter the origin, I argued, was found lacking.

Will study your instructions for quoting.

Edited by John Jones, : left bits out


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 08-06-2011 9:22 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Taq, posted 08-06-2011 10:20 PM John Jones has responded

  
John Jones
Junior Member (Idle past 3453 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 08-05-2011


Message 42 of 296 (628136)
08-06-2011 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Taq
08-06-2011 10:20 PM


"Perhaps you could explain how it is lacking? Are you saying that fitness is not a factor in the propagation of a genome?"

I couldn't begin to say what fitness is, nor its scope. Is the scope of fitness the continuance of the species, or individuals with greater number of offspring? The two aren't the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Taq, posted 08-06-2011 10:20 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Panda, posted 08-07-2011 6:23 AM John Jones has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Taq, posted 08-08-2011 3:15 PM John Jones has not yet responded

  
John Jones
Junior Member (Idle past 3453 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 08-05-2011


Message 46 of 296 (628470)
08-09-2011 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Taq
08-06-2011 10:20 PM


[qsPerhaps you could explain how it is lacking? Are you saying that fitness is not a factor in the propagation of a genome?qs]

I argued aginst the use of the term fitness. Unfortunately, the term is well-entrenched in biology. I suggested that biology could be better expressed without it.

Here are the reasons I gave:
"Fitness of offspring" -- As offspring and/or their parents are, by definition "fit" simply by being there, then fitness is not a quality "of" offspring or their parents. As this is a grammatical, semantic point, then we can replace offspring and parents with any X. X can be genomes, for example.

As the OP appeared to select biological/chemical facts by using the framework of fitness, then it threatened his enterprise with a tautology. (Fitness can't be a quality "of" a life-form, or "of" X; if fitness is the presence of X. All we end up saying is that fitness is the name of X. )

(also note, if you argue that success of reproduction of the offspring makes them fit, then i) success of reproduction doesn't necessarily incur advantage to the species, and ii) clearly, if the offspring do not reproduce then the parents reproductive success cannot be regarded as "fitness" or success. )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Taq, posted 08-06-2011 10:20 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Panda, posted 08-09-2011 7:33 PM John Jones has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 08-09-2011 9:35 PM John Jones has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 08-10-2011 12:05 PM John Jones has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021