hi cs;
You say--
“Subtraction equals addition” (although worded poorly) when your influx is greater than your retractions.
Right away I have to stop you. Let's agree that to take the English language seriously, and not get lost in "Wonderland" with the likes of Humpty Dumpty. To be specific, in English,(and I supect any other earthly language), anything that is "greater than" something else is never "equal" to it.
Where ”influx’ is the alleles provided by RM and a ”retraction’ is selecting against an allele via NS.
Excuse me, but you seem to be forgetting that we were discussing "natural selection", not "random genetic mutation". The issue being that 'ns' can only be subtractive, never additive, and so can only decrease biodiversity, and never increase it. "Random Genetic Mutation" is NOT "Natural Selection". They are entirely different notions. You cannot 'switch hit' from one to the other as the mood strikes you. A 'retraction' is a subtraction, i.e., a decrease, and wrt to biodiversity, and that is all that (notionally) 'ns' can ever accomplish.
Now, if you want, we'll discuss the notion that biodiversity can be increased by random genetic mutations, but that is a separate issue concerning a different and quite distinct hypothetical mechanism.
quote:
What I have said is that you are confusing increased biodiversity [an increase in the number of taxa ] with population expansion [an increase in the number of individuals within the same taxon].
I guess I can see how you might think that, but I am not confusing those things.
Well, you have a right to simply gainsay the obvious and undeniable, I suppose.
You seen to agree that RM can provide the new info to select from,
That is not really true, but it is too soon to go into the complexities of what I believe. What I am saying is that darwinians of the fisherian variety, [that is, believers in what is called "random but beneficial genetic mutations"], believe that rgm can and does supply 'new information', and that that 'new information' can and does mechanically and deterministically account for increases in the amount of organismic variety in the taxa of live organisms, that is, an actual increase in actual biological diversity.
We can discuss this belief, [and my own, quite different beliefs], just as soon as you can bring yourself to concede that 'natural selection' is not 'random genetic mutation', and that although some people believe that 'random genetic mutation' can and does contribute to the increase in the number of distinguishable bioforms [separate taxa, biodiversity] in the biosphere and/or local ecosystems, you are possibly the last person alive who believes that 'natural selection' does that very same thing. Please admit your mistake, drop your futile gainsaying, and let us move on.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but your obdurate insistence upon a point that has been shown to have no rational support has become a tad irritating.
Okay smartass
Oh, oh!
I wanted to make sure you weren’t in the “RM cannot add info” crowd.
Do not assume that I am not in that "crowd". As above, I merely note that that there are people in another "crowd" who do believe that random genetic mutations can and do "add info". I've never suggested that I am one of that "crowd".
So basically the question boils down to: How can biodiversity increase when the selective factor can only removing unacceptable traits?
Well, I wouldn't personify "the selective factor", [by which I take you to mean, 'natural selection'], by using words such as "unacceptable". Being an adaptationist, I would prefer, 'maladaptive' traits.
quote:
I think it would be better phrased this way:--How can biodiversity increase where the causal factor to which the increase is attributed [ns] is only capable of removing traits from the total number of presently existing biodiverse traits?
You have to have more alleles being introduced to the population, by RM, than there are being removed from the population, by NS.
I keep on asking you about "NS", and you keep on answering about "RGM".
This is really irritating.
[qs]
However, Wright and Kimura, as well as a number of 'anti-adaptationists', insist that 'rgm', all by itself, without any 'ns' at all, can and does increase biodiversity.
I would call that Genetic Drift. It is possible for it to lead to an increase in biodiversity but improbable.[/quote]
Some call it "Drift", some call it "Neutral Theory", all call it "anti-adaptationism"; and it, too, has its own "crowd". You and I may not belong to that "crowd", but it exists, nonetheless.
Just out of curiosity, why do you doubt that without the 'adaptation
component' that random genetic mutation could increase biodiversty, as so many other people seem to believe?
quote:
By 'prominent' I suppose you to mean 'numerically greater relative to other traits'. But how do you know that it is 'advantageous'? Because it has become 'numerically greater relative to other traits'?!? This is the old 'fitness' tautology. Like all tautologies and circular arguments, it sounds great,-- but means nothing.
An allele is advantageous when it affects the phenotype in a way that increases the chance of the allele to be present in future generations in higher quantities.
And here we go again. I ask a question about phenotypic traits [the only 'traits' that your "NS" can operate on, which was the point in question], and you answer about 'alleles'!! This, 'now you see 'em, now you don't', semantic shell-game you keep playing is really quite annoying.
IAC, even if you believe that a given allele equals a particular phenotypic trait [which, empirically-speaking, it does not], you are still left with the same 'survival of the fittest' tautology wrt 'alleles' as you have wrt 'phenotypic traits'. That is, your, "advantageous", is simply a re-phrasing of, "increases [the presence] of the allele in future generations" . And btw, nothing is 'advantageous' until it actually is advantageous. The mere chance that it 'might become' advantageous is not, in itself, advantageous. Not to an 'allele', and not to an organism/phenotype.
quote:
Actually, I mean that 'to select for' is meaningless. "Selection", in the notional darwinian sense of 'natural selection', can only 'subtract from', never 'add to', the biodiversity available to it. So, as I've said again and again, where increased biodiversity is concerned, 'positive selection' aka 'positive natural selection', is merely a fantasy.
The selection is positive when it is not selected against.
Meaning that addition is the absence of subtraction, I suppose?! That you 'save' a kitten's life every time that you refrain from drowning it?!?
What would you call a number that is non-zero and non-negative?[/qs]
What is the valid analogy that you are suggesting in your comparison of 'number theory' with 'natural selection'? That is, in empirical, scientific, biological terms, what is the difference between -3 rabbits in a copse and -12 rabbits in a copse? In biology, in biodiversity, quantities end at zero and begin at +1. There are no 'negative' numbers. Therefore there are no 'positive' numbers. There are only actual quantities of actual entities. Just, 'numbers'.
That's why mistaking arithmetic/statistics for biology, [which population geneticists make a career out of doing], is such a silly mistake. They are not the same thing, and your analogy is false.
I see what you mean that NS isn’t really “adding” anything to the biosphere, but if it is non-zero and non-negative, then calling it positive seems fine to me.
It may be fine by you, but it is meaningless since it is unecessary and redundant. Worse, it implies something that simply is not there. That is, 'value judgement' in an abstract notion/physical event [ns].
You get a constant influx of mutations to the population from RM. In a simplified model, NS just puts pressure on some of those mutations so that it is harder for them to reproduce. However, NS can also promote the reproduction of that mutation, if the mutation provides a benefit to reproducing.
Just more circular argumentation, i.e., 'begging the question', that you've been offering all along. It just does not fly.
Now, we can imagine mutations coming in from all over the place, in a way that each individual is more like a new bioform that it is a member of the parent bioform. In this case, every bioform that did not get selected against, or had a benefit that made reproduction easier, would be an increase in the biodiversity. In this case we would see biodiversity increase readily and quickly.
Actually, the moment that any novel bioform enters the biosphere, biodiversity is increased, and as soon as that bioform/taxon dies out, biodiversity is decreased, and, as I've told you many, many time, it does not matter whether there is only a single example of that particular bioform, or a million of them.
Nor does it matter wrt to diversity whether or not that novel bioform persists for an hour as one individual, or persists for a million years as a billion [roughly]identical individuals in the same taxon, the novel arrival of the first one increases biodiversity, and the death of the last one decreases biodiversity. Therefore a 'hopeful monster' increases biodiversity, and if it dies shortly after birth then it decreases biodiversity, albeit only for the short time that it formed a part of the biosphere. 'Inheritance of bioform over generations' is an aspect of evolutionary theory, but it does not necessarily, logically, pertain to biological diversity. If a biologically different bioform exists, even for only a minute, you cannot deny that was there, and that simply by virtue of its existence, it increased biodiversity for a time.
This, however, is not how it works in the real world. What we do have is a relatively small amount of mutations and those mutation are such that the new bioform is hardly distinguishable from the parent, if at all.
Hold on. Now you are saying that each new organism constitutes a brand new bioform. Technically, since no two organisms are ever exactly alike, that may be true. But it is useless and unenlightening. The whole point of biodiversity is that some bioforms are essentially different from other bioforms.
Taxonomy is founded upon degrees of 'sameness' and 'difference', and distinctions between basic, fundamental, essential, invariable, constant properties, and accidental, non-essential, variable, inconstant properties. It's a problem that goes back at least as far as Aristotle and haunts taxonomy to this very day. What, for instance, are the essential properties, or qualities, or traits, that define a human being as a human being, as opposed to those which define an orangutan as an orangutan? It is the assumption that human beings are essentially different from orangutans, and other organisms, as a particular, identifiable taxon, thankis to some constant, essential, basic property, that gives the word, 'biodiversity', meaning.
To admit of every trivial difference between individuals is to render 'biodiversity' meaningless.
It works out in a way that one allele might have an 89.67% chance of being passed on, and another has a 90% chance. This slight difference in that chance, when compounded over many generations leads to significant changes in the bioform. As long as there are significant changes in the bioform, speciation events are possible, and biodiversity can increase.
You seem to have completely forgotten about "NS", and to have moved on to "RGM", and examination of 'chance' as the source of increased biodiversity.
And btw, significant changes/differences in bioform IS biodiverity. You are still talking in circles.
It is NS that provided that extra third of a percent chance of the allele being passed on.
By what logic, inconceivable to me, did you arrive at that conclusion?
That is the positive selection that can “cause” the increase in biodiversity.
So now you are saying that 'positive selection' equals 'chance', aka 'good luck'?!? I guess that would make natural selection a matter of bad luck, wouldn't it? I'm not sure that 'luck' is a scientific phenomenon, however.
But on the semantic side, it doesn’t really “cause” it because the new information has been provided by RM, not NS. So, we can say that RM causes it, but without the selective pressure, the chances of being passed on would be random,
To the contrary, it would be non-random, since 'natural selection', [as nebulously defined as it is], would, by not acting, insure that the supposed "new information", i.e., the new bioform, would, must, persist, since without 'natural selection' there is nothing to prevent it from persisting. Indeed, because 'ns' is all-encompassing, and refers to any lethal attack on the bioform from any number of randomly appearing environmental agents, it is in fact 'ns' that makes the persistence of a novel bioform, 'a matter of chance', instead of 'a sure thing'.
Yes, NS is not the ”source’. But it can and does provide non-zero, non-negative pressure on bioforms so that their genotype has an actual better chance of reproduction, which causes the variation within the population, which is what can lead to a speciation event and thus an increase in biodiversity.
Look, you and I have a much better chance of living to be 100 if some maniac doesn't shoot us tomorrow, but his failure to murder us cannot be considered the cause of our subsequent longevity. Your reasoning is simply illogical.
But from RM, we have a constant addition of new “lives”. To not remove a new life means that bringing new life into the world is the default.
There you go again!! We are taking about "NS" and increased biodiversity. Please stop confusing that subject with that of "RGM" and increased biodiversity.
quote:
Environmental factors result in the differential mortality rates deaths of different organisms. Some organisms die sooner than others, from an almost infinite variety of particular causes, most of them environmental and/or organismic. Dressing up this fact/effect with labels like 'negative selection' and 'positive selection', and then awarding causal power to a label/fact/effect, is inane.
What about it, specifically, makes it inane?
What is there about believing that by attaching a label to something will explain that something, or in any way increase our understanding of that labelled something, is not inane?
The causal power is awarded because NS can have an effect that makes the allele more beneficial, that the allele has a higher probability of succeeding.
You keep on reiterating this belief of yours in circular, tautological language, without ever providing any logical line of reasoning to back it up!! You're not getting anywhere by simply repeating yourself, and if that is all you are going to do, then I'm simply going to ignore the issue from now on. I simply have no time for "Is so!/Is not!" gainsaying.
The increase in individuals with the allele are technically in the same bioform, but as more and more mutations stack up, the individuals become more and more distinct from that bioform and when a speciation event occurs, the biodiversity increases.
What's "speciation event", in your opinion, and what does "NS" have to do with it?
But speciation does not work like: bison --> horse.
It’d be more like: bison --> bisoe --> bosoe --> bosse --> hosse --> horse.
Well, that is your opinion of how evolution works, and of course you are welcome to it. Never mind about 'punk eek' for the present.
However, when it came to the great plains, biodiversity was not a matter evolution at all. Least of all a matter of bison gradually [well, quite suddenly, I suppose!] mutating into horses, alphabetically. It was a simple matter of people eliminating bison and introducing horses into that ecosystem. So why are you saying this stuff? It's entirely out of left field, completely non sequitur.
quote:
Meaning that 'rgm' supposedly causes the change in bioform, [additional bioform being an increase in biodiversity], and 'ns' supposedly causes a change in the numbers of the same bioform [no increase in biodiversity].
That seems about right.
Well, now that you understand, can we move on?
And that’s where the conflation of the word “cause” comes into play.
What "conflation"?!??
Can we say that either one of them really causes biodiversity, can’t we say that they both cause it? It depends on how we use the word “cause”.
Well, not being Humpty Dumpty, I believe that there is only one legitimate way in which to use the word, "cause". This one, [taken from The American Heritage Dictionary, although any other dictionary will serve]--
cause(kz)
n.
The producer of an effect, result, or consequence.
The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result.A basis for an action or response; a reason: The doctor's report gave no cause for alarm.
A goal or principle served with dedication and zeal: “the cause of freedom versus tyranny” (Hannah Arendt).
The interests of a person or group engaged in a struggle: “The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind” (Thomas Paine).
Law.
A ground for legal action.
A lawsuit.
A subject under debate or discussion.
tr.v., caused, caus·ing, caus·es.
To be the cause of or reason for; result in.
To bring about or compel by authority or force: The moderator invoked a rule causing the debate to be ended
Bold added to pertinent senses of the word.
What do you propose is the “fix” to the ToE that I would have a problem with?
The elimination of 'random chance' at the genomic level as the cause of adaptive evolution at the organismic level. Since that is the be-all and end-all of "the ToE", I'm pretty much saying that "the ToE" would have to be junked entirely, and replaced with a scientific theory of evolution that does not depend on luck as its essential constituent.
[qs]
Just for shits and giggle, what if I concede that NS cannot do it, then what do you propose IS the “cause” of the increase in biodiversity that we observe? [qs]
In a word? Autopoiesis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
™ Version 4.2