Destroying Darwinism

I cannot believe that you are still going on along
this line after all this time!!!Endangered species ARE subject to natural selection just
like any other species. The problem for endangered species
is that the modifications to their environments are so
rapid that no amount of variation will enable species survival.
Usually these changes are wrought by man at an alarming rate.Rapid environmental change leads to extinction ... i.e. none
of a population have what it takes to survive the change.The best definition to take is the one that matches most closely
the observations that led to the concept in the first place.Whether an individual reproduces or not does not have an impact
on the population as a whole.It is whether significant groups of individuals reproduce, and
how many offspring they leave that impacts the next generation.Natural selection is quite straightforward unless one decides
to take a dislike for it on some obscure grounds.

I have had this basic discussion with Syamsu, at length
in two threads that got closed because they were going
nowhere.It's nice to see that people can assimilate what they
have learned into their thinking (That was sarcasm BTW).

I'd just have to say that I think natural selection can
apply without population variation. It just wouldn't
be driving evolution.Natural selection is concerned with traits that give some
individuals an advantage in a particular environment. That
could apply to clone populations, but the results would be either
extinction (where there is a poor fit), population limitation
(where there is a moderate fit), and population explosion( where
there is a good fit).All a bit qualitative I know, but if you view natural selection
as being concerned with the relationship between an individual
and it's environment which has an effect on it's reproductive
capacity then you don't actually require variation.Of course without variation you cannot have evolution.

Check out any literature on human populations that mentions
mtDNA and you will see that there are references to base-pair
differences -- that's variation.I have blue eyes, my wife has green eyes, many of my friends
have brown eyes -- that's variation.Populations have variation -- to deny it is to be blind.

No ... again.You are discussing two different things.If I wish to know about apples it is pointless to look
at electric motors.Conservationists (and other field biologists) already look
at what an organism needs for survival and reproduction.That is not the subject matter of natural selection.If you wish to take quotes out of context, do so, but you will
find that most people will view that as a base ploy and an
indication of flailing against just criticism.Natural selection is a description of what is seen in nature.
It is observed to occur.You have had this pointed out with numerous examples for over
a year now, and yet you still deny the reality of it. Who is
being untruthful?No amount of variation can accomodate rapid environmental changes
otherwise dinosaurs would still walk the earth (and in all liklihood
we would not be).Natural selection is not the be-all and end-all of biology, it is
the nechanism by which evolution is supposed to progress.There IS variaiton within populations, and sometimes such
variation can confer a survival advantage to those individuals
who carry the trait. The natural consequence of this is that
they will leave behind more offspring than those that do not
survive as long (or at least have a good chance of doing so).You will doubtless now start bleating about the pointlessness
of comparisons, and of differential reproductive success.Do you ever actually think anything through?Sorry for the sharp tone, but your bull-like stubborness is somewhat
tiring.

quote:

---

differential reproductive success of variants is generally irrellevant to endangered species.

---

It depends on the nature and rapidity of the endangerment.If a species is being hunted to extinction by man, then short of
developing bullet-proofness or invisibility it is unlikely to
survive without help.If a species is heading for extinction because the water-ways are
polluted, then there is the slim possibility that some
individuals may be more tolerant to the pollutants and thus leave
offspring with this tendancy in greater numbers.If a species is heading for extinction because we are mowing down
it's trees then those individuals who have the best ability to survive
without trees will be the parents for the next generation.In short species adaptability is limited by the rate and magnitude of
the environmental change (take a fish and put it in a desert for
example). Within certain change limits natural selection will be seen
quite readily -- and has been documented!!Natural selection does not have endangered species as its subject matter in the same way that gravitational theory doesn't.

As I have said before, natural selection is uninteresting without
variation. Evolution cannot be progressed via natural selection
without variation.Mutation is a variation isn't it?Evolution looks at the species level, not the individual.One individual with a variation (like black wings) is a mutant
(let's call it Rogue ). When it's generation reproduces,
and Rogue produces more black winged moths we have the
beginnings of a black-winged sub-population. If we have a set
of environmental conditions that favour black wings, we will
get predominantly black-winged moths, if the conditions favour
white winged then we will get predominantly white winged moths,
if there is no real difference we will get a broadly equal mixture
depending on the heritability of the trait.Individuals do not evolve ... they cannot, since their genetic
make-up is set at fertilisation. We may get copy errors in our
cells along the way, but they are not going to make change into
something different.Populations evolve ... and if generation X is sufficiently different
from generation 0 then we have a new species.In short without the mutation (variation) evolution cannot
occur, but one mutant does not an evolutionary change make.

I never said endangered species were uninteresting ... please
read posts before responding to them, I find this helps
immensely.I said natural selection on a population without variation
is uninteresting in the sense that:i) The results would only impact population size
and
ii) There are no populations that do no have some variation
(as far as I am aware), due to the high rate of copy errors
when cells divide.I say natural selection without variation is valid, yes.It does not apply to endangered species, however, and no species
on the planet exists without variation. Humans are amongst the
least varied organisms on the planet and look at the phenotypic
variability there.Natural selection can only keep pace if the magnitude and rate
of the environmental changes are small/slow enough.Most endangered species, if not all, are endangered by man,
and the form of the endangerment is either hunting or rapid
destruction of ecosystems. This is akin to the catastrophic
extinction events inferred from the fossil record.Mutations are not uninteresting either, but a single mutation
exhibited by a single organism within a population is not
evolution.Evolution is a species-level effect not an individual level effect.I am different from my parents, not just because I have a mix
of their genes, but because during the process of gamete creation
there will have been copy errors. Recent research suggests that
the number of copy errors can be unexpectedly high.I do not represent the next stage of human evolution though.I simply have a new variation compared to my parents.Evolution happens when a variation that comes about confers
a survival benefit relative to some environmental factor that
gives a tendancy for that variation to be passed to more
of the next generation than would be the case through reproductive
processes alone.Large phenotypic effects can happen, but hopeful monsters are
not generally considered to be the norm. in evolutionary terms.
Maybe there have been instances of such energing and surviving --
I wouldn't like to rule it out entirely, but it seems unlikely to
be the usual evolutionary 'tactic'.

quote:

---

Considering I've argued this with you several times before, it would be good if you would only make arguments that take notice
of all counterarguments I have offered before in responding. Otherwise simply don't post.

---

I could say exactly the same ... that's why these threads tend to
get closed.I take note of your counterarguments, pointing out the many flaws,
which you then ignore and carry on.What causes endangered species to be endangered is what you need
to know to help maintain a breeding population.Since the endangerment of species is rarely (these days) a natural
occurrance then we need an approach which targets the man-made
problems that underly drop off in species numbers.You have had it pointed out before that natural selection is not
always acting, nor is it always capable of driving change.If I slaughter more buffalo than are born every season, eventually
there will be none left ... I hardly think that and natural
variability within the populaiton can cope with fur-traders and
butchers.The subject matter of conservationists is not evolution.Natural selection is an observed process thought to drive evolution.They are not linked in any meaningful way.

If I understand you correctly, I agree.Syamsu's view of what is or is not variation seems to be at
odds with biologists view on the same issue.

Just had a thought on some of Syamsu's misunderstandings.'Survival of the fittest' (excuse the ancient and inaccurate
term) does not mean 'there can be only one'.Take ten populations in the same ecosystem where all have traits
that help them survive, but within each population some are
better adapted than others. Each species will be predominated
by those best fit critters ... but not to the complete exclusion
of the not-so-fit (not at first anyhow).All the different populations survive (some using photosynthesis
some not for example) because of their individual relaitonships
with the ecosystem in which they all reside. Some of those
relationships may be with one another (e.g. predator-prey,
parasitic, saprophitic), but there are also any number of other
factors invovled in the daily grind to survive.

But it is still selection if other, cohabiting
populations are not similarly affected.Natural selection isn't about changing trait frequencies per-se,
it's a process that produces that result when variation
exists.Although (as above) if you step back another layer, then
the trait frequencies are across populations too.

In reference to the peppered moths:::Natural selection is used to explain why there are more
black than white when the trees and buildings are covered
in black/dark soot.The survival rate of white moths and black moths is related
to the same environmental factor.They are all part of the same population and do not compete
with one another in respect of this environmental relationship.When the trees are black the white ones are easier for birds
to see, and so get eaten more often than black ones, which are
harder to see.I have always failed to see what your actual objection is, to the
extent that I don't think you actually have an objection
beyond trying hard not to accept that evolution happens.Your focus on reproduction events ignores the effects of
individuals dying before sexual maturity.Your focus on individuals neglects the populational effect
that natural selection is an explanation of.Your neglect/mis-understanding of variation is unrealistic.

The question you were being asked is 'what do the numbers
mean?' without that info. no one can discuss your post.Example::
Red 31.
See that prooves evolution.
Without some explanation of what it means it cannot be
discussed.

What is your justification for discarding variation from
the definition, and what would that make your definition
of natural selection?Comparing what?Natural selection is not a theoretical framework that requires
deductive reasoning to support it. It is a description of
something observed in nature.If I was to describe a red hot-air balloon to you, would it
be irrelevent to mention that it can float at different
altitudes just because that is not 'about' the balloon
itself ... after all floating is just something that we don't
need to know about with hot air balloons ... it's just a
comparison between the ground and the position of the balloon
how is that relevent to hot-air balloons!!!!