Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   natural selection is wrong
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 26 of 276 (110414)
05-25-2004 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Syamsu
05-25-2004 7:58 AM


Syamsu writes:
I do understand what I'm talking about. Reproduction will tend to fill up an environment to capacity. When it arrives at capacity the mean average reproductive rate cannot be larger then 1, obviously, because there aren't any resources anymore in the environment to go over 1.
Ummm...obviously you don't know what you're talking about. Organisms die too, you know. You seem to be ignoring death rate here...or am I reading this wrong? There's no reason to assume that all organisms, upon reaching K, will have to decrease their reproductive output to only one individual (actually, only leaving one offspring to the next generation is not good enough to even replace yourself).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Syamsu, posted 05-25-2004 7:58 AM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Wounded King, posted 05-25-2004 1:13 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 34 of 276 (110665)
05-26-2004 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Syamsu
05-26-2004 7:53 AM


Hello Again Syamsu:
Syamsu writes:
I am counting *all* individuals in calculating a mean average reproduction rate, not just the ones who live until reproductive age, or something like that. Obviously when the populationsize stays the same, the mean average reproductionrate over all individuals must be one.
This makes no sense. Are you telling me that the average reproduction rate for a population of mosquitoes is one? That’s ridiculous! Do you not see the utter meaningless of that statement? If I take the average income of myself and Bill Gates, I come out looking pretty goodbut it’s meaningless! My actual income in nowhere near this calculated average income (that you seem to think is so vital a measurement).
Syamsu writes:
You could also argue that it must be 2 with sexual reproduction, but then you have overlapping offspring, it would be counting individuals twice.
What in the hell are you talking about? Overlapping offspring? Counting the same individuals twice? Look, in order for a sexually reproducing organism to replace itself, it needs to have two offspring because it is, on average, only 50% related to its offspring. That means that if you only have one kid, you have only contributed 50% of your genes to the next generation. I'm not counting the same individual twice, I counting two genetically unique individuals once each.
Syamsu writes:
I used this idiosyncratic definition, which seems much straightforward to me actually, to illustrate the binary nature of selection on a populational level, of reproduction or no reproduction, that it tends to go towards 1 or 0.
Bull shit!
Syamsu writes:
You see a moth being eaten by a bird, and one repetition later you again see a moth eaten by a bird. The moth being eaten by the bird would still be counted in calculating an average reproductionrate.
Fine, the moth that was eaten is used to calculate the average reproductive rate. Big deal. You are ignoring two very important questions that I think Crashfrog has been trying to point out to you since the beginning of this thread. They are:
1. Why did the moth get eaten?
2. Had it reproduced yet?
Natural selection deals with these two questions, and I’ll let you figure out for yourself why they are evolutionarily important.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Syamsu, posted 05-26-2004 7:53 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Syamsu, posted 05-27-2004 1:18 AM FliesOnly has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 36 of 276 (110718)
05-26-2004 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Syamsu
05-26-2004 9:12 AM


I’ve read through the paper you referenced in the original post for this thread and do not see where they reach the conclusions that you are claiming (although, I will admit, some of it is a bit confusingbut then again, I don’t speak philosophy babble). Having said that, let’s look at your latest claims.
Syamsu writes:
The reason for inclusion of variation in Darwinism is because there is supposed to be a difference in likelyhood to reproduce corresponding to variation.
You seem to be implying that there is no link between variation and reproductive success. You cannot be serious. There is most definitely a connection between reproduction and variation. How can you claim otherwise? I’m asking you seriously, do you really think that an animals’ genotype has no bearing on whether it will or will not mate? What, do you think animals simple run around and randomly mate with each other? That no choices are madethat no evaluations are utilizedthat no comparisons are developed? Come onget real. To say that variation is nonexistent as a tool of natural selection may be one of the dumbest things I have ever read.
Syamsu writes:
Since the paper includes lightningstrikes as a legitimate example of natural selection, this logic is lost, and therefore the reason to include variation in the definition is lost.
Again, I believe you have reached conclusions that the authors themselves have not. I’ll even argue that your claim (that who may or may not get struck by lightning is not dependent on variation) is itself not true. I’ll argue that NS has in many cases selected for organisms that have some ability to detect and therefore avoid lightning strikes in general. Oh sure, the occasional animal may be killed by lightning, but again the question: why was it killed? needs to be asked. Accidents happen. You seem to be equating a random lightning strike as an example of Natural Selection. No...that’s not exactly true. Shit happens, but a one time stochastic even, such as getting struck by lightning, is not necessarily an example of natural selection.
Let's look at two individuals in a population and see how they behaved during a thunder storm. One of them was behaving in such a manner as to avoid lightning but still somehow managed to get killed by it anyway. This type of event is not an example of lightning acting as selective force for lightning avoidance behavior. Why? Well the removal of this individuals genes from the gene pool will have no effect on future generations lightning avoidance behavior. Now let's look at the other individual and say the it has a genetic variation that programs it to behave in such a manner as to increase the likelyhood of being struck by lightning, and sure enough he is successful. This, I would argue, is an example of NS at workand I say this because the genes that led to the behavior (that resulted in the organism being struck and killed by lightning) have now been removed from the gene pool. Variation!! Variation is absolutely required for natural selection to operate.
Syamsu writes:
If now somebody asks you to explain natural selection, you might say like:
take one organism with bad eyesight, and one organism with good eyesight, they are equally likely to be hit by lightning, that is natural selection.
Bull shit. I'd never say anything like that...for the reasons stated above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Syamsu, posted 05-26-2004 9:12 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 41 of 276 (110841)
05-27-2004 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Syamsu
05-27-2004 1:18 AM


Syamsu writes:
Yes the average rate of reproduction of an individual mosquito is 1, and the average rate of reproduction of a mosquite that belongs to the share of the population that reproduces is 1000 or something.
Did you even read what you just wrote? You are saying the average reproductive rate for an individual mosquito is both one and one thousand.
It's really quite simple. The average reproductive rate of an individual in a population of mosquitos would be the total number of offsrping produced divided by the number of individuals in the population. What you are prehaps trying to refer to is the survival rate to reproductive age. That might be a number approaching one. And why do we see such a low survivability rate? Certainly there are many factors involved, but genetic variation plays a much much larger role than random lightning strikes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Syamsu, posted 05-27-2004 1:18 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 42 of 276 (110843)
05-27-2004 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Wounded King
05-27-2004 5:59 AM


Wounded King writes:
As to addressing the paper rather than your commentary on it. I thought the paper was pretty good. I don't think it is fair to dissmiss it as some sort of philosophical post-modernist babble.
I'm not sure if this was addressed to "me" because of my earlier comment in post #36, but I do agree with you. It was a good paper, but I had read it rather quickly the first time through (I wanted to post a reply before I went home for the day). Honestly, I'm not very good at absorbing those kinds of papers and need to read them v e r y s l o w l y a few times before I get a grasp of what it all means. I didn't mean to imply that I thought the paper was "babble" and I'm sorry if my comment came across as flippant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Wounded King, posted 05-27-2004 5:59 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Wounded King, posted 05-27-2004 9:06 AM FliesOnly has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 44 of 276 (110882)
05-27-2004 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Syamsu
05-27-2004 1:12 AM


Good Morning Syamsu:
Syamsu writes:
Natural selection: The black moth is more suited for camouflage to the black tree, then the white moth, so there is a difference in likelyhood to reproduce of the black moth and the white moth, corresponding to their variation.
No. You’re wrong yet again. If we assume an equal starting distribution for both the white phase and the black phase of moths and we also assume random mating as it pertains to color (and let’s make the same assumptions as Wounded Knee does in post 40 in regards to heterozygotes and homozygotes) then there is an equal likelihood for either type of mating. However, if the black phase is indeed more suited to the environment (black = better camouflage) then we will see a difference in the survival rate between the two phases.which will result in a shift in the distribution such that the back phase becomes much more prevalent. In other words, the color of the moth does not determine who mates with whom, but rather the environment dictates (via NS) which of these matings will produce offspring that themselves survive to reproduce.
Syamsu writes:
Natural Selection: Either black moth or white moth is equally likely to be hit by lighting, so there is no difference in likelyhood to reproduce corresponding to their variation.
But this totally ignores so many other factors. Basically, are you trying to tell me (and others that read your posts) that because lightning strikes are random in nature, that variation within a species is meaningless? How ridiculous. How absurd. How pathetic. That statement is true only if we look at the probability to mate as it relates to the probability to detect and avoid lightning strikes. So yes, in that sense (and only in that sense) there is no difference in the likelihood that a black moth will reproduce versus the likelihood that a white moth will reproduce. In other words (and I’m just guessing hereI’m not an expert of moth mating behavior) when assessing a potential mate, the ability to detect and avoid lightning strikes is NOT a consideration, regardless of color.
Let me ask you this. Since you seem to think that variation plays no role in natural selection, what if a mutation occurred in a moth population such that some of the males are blind, have no wings, and lack the ability to produce sperm? By your rather ridiculous definition of natural selection, these moths would have an equal likelihood to reproduce as any other male in the population (unless they get hit by lightning I guess). Do you really believe that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Syamsu, posted 05-27-2004 1:12 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 45 of 276 (111108)
05-28-2004 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Syamsu
05-27-2004 1:18 AM


Syamsu writes:
Yes the average rate of reproduction of an individual mosquito is 1, and the average rate of reproduction of a mosquite that belongs to the share of the population that reproduces is 1000 or something.
Ya know, I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but here’s another problem with this statement. I could be wrong (it has been known to happen) but by just going through Syamsus idea in my mind, I don't even think it's possible for a sexually reproducing population to have a reproductive rate of "one" (at least not one the exhibits semelparity). The population would be doomed to extinction. Here's an extreme example: Let’s say we have a sexually reproducing population that has reached its carrying capacity, is strictly monogamous, has a 1:1 ratio of males to females, a 1:1 ratio of male births to female births, is semelparous, and produces offspring only in the spring. Tell me, Syamsu, how is it possible for this population to have a reproductive rate of one and still remain viable? I assume you realize that in a sexually reproducing population it takes two individuals in order to be successful. If each couple in the above population only leave one offspring to the next generation, the population size is reduced by half each spring. Not a very stable strategy now is it.
But you don't even need an example this extreme. If a semelparous population reproduces sexually, and the females can only give birth to one individual, then the next generation will only contain as many individuals as there were females in the previous generation...correct? Think about salmonthey swim upstream, reproduce, and then die. If 35,000 of them make the journey and 30,000 of them are female, then guess what the maximum population size of the next generation will be (and note that this completely ignores lightning strikes ). Hell, even if 34,999 of them are females and the lone male somehow manages to successfully reproduce with them all, the population size of the next generation is still one lessand will continue to decrease each year.
So, unless I’m way off base here, or am completely misinterpreting what Syamsu is trying to say, I think he needs to re-think his idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Syamsu, posted 05-27-2004 1:18 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Syamsu, posted 05-31-2004 5:27 AM FliesOnly has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 85 of 276 (112405)
06-02-2004 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Syamsu
05-31-2004 5:27 AM


Syamsu writes:
from your other post:
"The average reproductive rate of an individual in a population of mosquitos would be the total number of offsrping produced divided by the number of individuals in the population"
I humbly have to admit that I made an error in that in my example I was not assuming a stable population and I made the assumption that we were looking at only those individuals that actually did reproduce. My fault. I think I understand your point though and it really tells us nothing. The average reproductive rate of a population is of little value if we do not take into account who is doing the reproducing. But then again since, in your opinion, variability within a population is nonexistent, I guess you think simply knowing that an average reproductive rate equals one is a meaningful number.
Syamsu writes:
So since the populationsize stays the same, then if the population is 100, then 100 need to be reproduced, because all organisms die. 100/100=1 . If we would have any more or less then 100 being reproduced, then the population would increase or decrease.
Ummmin the strictest since I guess this is true. However, you are way oversimplifying what is truly happening to the point that it’s beyond just stupidyou’ve entered the realm of mega-stupid. As Nosy Ned did in an earlier post, I too will ask you: so what? A stable population would have a birth rate that equals its death rate. Saying that the average reproductive rate is one really tells us nothing.
In the real world, the number of offspring actually produced (again, I’m assuming a sexually reproducing population) would most definitely NOT be one birth per individual in the population. It absolutely could not be one, because despite your ridiculous claim, not everyone reproduces, and accidents happen. You can’t simply dismiss reproductive choice in the manner that you are attempting.
I guess another question now would be: what’s your point? Do you need to stick to this rather ridiculous claim in order to support your assertion that variation does not matter? It’s stupid. It doesn’t happen that way. For example, do the words dynamic equilibrium mean anything to you?
Syamsu writes:
Maybe you are also fooled by Darwinist talk that some survive while other's not survive. That is of course not true in the long run. In the long run *all* die, no organism survives, so to have a stable populationsize, in a way, *all* must be reproduced.
What in the hell are you talking about?
Fooled by Darwinist talk that some survive while others do not survive? Fooled? Are you flippin insane? You can’t honestly believe this crap. I am completely flabbergasted. I am stumped for a reply. This should be nominated for post of the month. Are you really saying that the chances of surviving to a ripe old age is the same for everyone? Are you really saying that because all organisms die, that if a population is stable everybody reproduced? Are you really saying that there is no variation within a population? Holy Crap! You really do not have clue do you? I refuse to accept that you believe thisyou have to be just throwing our garbage in hopes of getting a reply (and apparently it worked ) Let me come right out and ask you these two questions:
1) Do you, Syamsu, believe that in a stable population every newborn survives, and that death only comes to the old and that the only means of death is old age (whatever that is)?
2) Do you Syamsu, believe that there is no variation in a population or that if it does exist, it plays NO role in determining who survives and/or reproduces and who does not?
Syamsu writes:
As before to talk about sexual reproduction, you have to go into such issues as, if you only contribute half the genes, then should that be counted as one, or half an offspring etc.
You just don’t get it, do you?
Syamsu writes:
I'm just limiting myself to the basic observation that seeing how all organisms die, the individuals in the population with the stable populationsize we see when an population reaches capacity, would have an average reproductionrate of 1.
And I’m limiting myself to the basic observation that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Syamsu, posted 05-31-2004 5:27 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024