Evolution Simplified

All of our ecological models are generalizations (in some cases, attempted generalizations) based on observations of actual populations. There's quite a good literature base on the subject, beginning with the first quantification attempt by MacArthur and Wilson back in the '70s. Many of the mathematical models are extremely useful from a practical standpoint, others are more theoretical.In terms of the discussion, things like carrying capacity, density analysis, species/area effect, extinction risk modeling, population viability analysis, etc, are all mathematical models that are particularly useful for practical conservation initiatives. The real danger is that people sometimes seem to forget that these are generalizations: the map is not the terrain. However, there's a lot of empirical support for each of them, and they are good tools if used carefully (i.e., with full understanding of their respective limitations). Basically, no one is saying that "this state of affairs must be", rather that we have developed tools to explain observations from the field that can be useful in a general context.Does that answer your question?

I was wondering if there's a factor of inevitability involved, but apparently not. It's a matter of saying, "As far as we have observed, this is the case."What about this fact? Is this inevitable? Perhaps all mutations could be neutral? Are mutations themselves inevitable?

look at the mutations made easy thread by Quetz.In that mutations do happen, you could say that they are inevitable. It is inevitable that the DNA replication mistake repair enzymes won't catch all mistakes.It's a mutation that's responsible for cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia. It's also reponsible for well over one hundred genetic diseases. IOW, not all mutations are neutral, some are even horrendous.As to fact #5, it's true. SCA, if homozygous recessive, will kill you if not treated, and it does this is roughly five years. No reproduction possible at that young an age. Not having the homozygous condition will give you a better chance to reproduce.

Well, its inevitable that most populations are not increasing. If they were, there's be way too many animals on the planet. It seems so obvious to me I don't know how you can't see it. The claim isn't about all populations, just most of them. We can't have most of the populations increasing. Yes. Again the claim is only for some, not all, of the traits. Nope, we know of mutations that are not neutral, they cannot all be neutral. Yes, because of inaccurate replication.

It is not theoretically possible that all traits be neutral? By "inaccurate replication," do you mean "imperfect replication"?This inevitably leads to mutation?

Why do you care if its "theoretically possible"? Traits exist that are not neutral, therefore not all traits are neutral. What are you doing? whats your point? Sure, call it what you will.By inaccurate replication I mean replication as a thing. It is a replication that is different that the original.By imperfect replication I think of the process. The process isn't perfect and leads to differences. Yes. After replication, when there is a difference, that difference is a mutation. The replication is imperfect, it leads to inaccurate replications that have differences.

Wouldn't it depend on how long they've been increasing and what rate?Perhaps most species are increasing but haven't been doing so for very long, or perhaps the rate of increase is so small we don't notice it. Is that theoretically possible?

I'm trying to figure out if this process is inevitable. What traits exist that are not neutral? How do we know they are not neutral?This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-11-2006 03:48 PM

For what?Why is it so hard for you to accept something even when everyone is telling you it? C'mon now. Just think about it. A trait would have to not affect anything to be neutral. Aren't there traits that have effects?

Telling me what? I think we are talking about a particular effect not just any effect. It has to have an effect on which creatures reproduce and which don't, I think. Some trait that on the face of it seems like a survival advantage might have no effect on which life forms reproduce, those with or those without the trait. It depends on the entire environmental situation and the other traits possessed by the organism. One might even imagine a situation where having vision--which seems like an obvious advantage--might be a negative trait, depending on other factors.So perhaps it is not a simple matter at all determining which traits are neutral and which not.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-11-2006 05:36 PM

quote:

---

To show this you have to show abiogenesis (I can't think of another option anyway). I've always assumed that was part of the ToE.

---

To repeat what I've said, you have assumed wrong. It's not that the question of the origin of life is not an interesting one; it is an interesting question. But it is a separate issue from the theory of evolution.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

I am referring to whether or not they are theoretically inevitable, and if so, whether it is theoretically inevitable that some of these be non-neutral.

all I can say is "duh!".Look at my SCA example

Imperfect replication is a mutation?

What are you talking about?