quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
I agree mostly, Natural Selection is for an organism to reproduce or fail to reproduce. I have some questions about including survival, but mostly I agree.
Wouldn't you say that survival has a very large effect on an
individual's ability to reproduce?
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
I think you are mistaken that this is generally clear, or accepted, by biology students, as well as biology scientists. On this forum I seem to remember Schrafinator requiring all sorts of other criteria for Natural Selection, as well as Tazimus_Maximus, and on usenet talk.origins, as well as other forums, it was made clear to me that there had to be variation and a difference in reproductive success related to that variation for Natural Selection to apply. Again, differential reproductive success of variants, obviously doesn't apply to a clone population. Nor does Darwin's original formulation apply to a clone population, the great majority of definitions of Natural Selection don't apply to a clone population.
You don't need variation for natural selection to apply.
If you had a single species that (for whatever reason) was
not suited to its environment, and was wiped out, that would
be it for life ... nature has selected against it.
Could you perhaps give references to definitions of NS that
include 'extinction' and 'variation'.
I cannot comment on what biologists may or may not think.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
I think you are arguing like that supposedly it is interpretatively understood that NS does apply, eventhough per most definitions it doesn't apply. I don't think science works that way. Science has to be exact/precise, and not interpretatively understood.
That's why you need to re-check the NS definitions, find a consensus,
rather than hook on to one persons version ... one person could
be wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
If the environment changes the organism may become less adapted eventhough it is the same as before. A fish on dry land is not much adapted. That is how I understand the word. I don't know what you mean by adapted if not that.
It's not 'less adapted' it is 'less suited' they are subtly
different.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
For as far as the moth example goes, it could be that there is fitness for reproduction related to colorgrade prior to trees turning black. This doesn't exclude interbreeding, I didn't mean to exclude it.
The wing-colour on the peppered moths is like hair colour
amongst humans ... there is only one TYPE of moth so interbreeding
is not relevent.
The example is suggesting that the difference in camouflage
affects survival on different coloured barks, and that if dark barks
are the norm then darker moths will pre-dominate.
).
™ Version 4.2
