Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsification theory of Natural Selection
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 174 (12734)
07-04-2002 8:07 AM


Ummm... peppered moths are not a good example at all... Peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks during the day.
‘But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time. In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere.’-British scientist Cyril Clarke.
Then you might talk about all those photos. Do you really want to know how it was done? Dead moths were glued to the tree-D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, ‘Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation’, Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67—83, 1975
Also, there are many contradictory evidences of population changes. In some industrial areas, yes, the dark moths dominated, but in many other industrial areas the light moths dominated. In some non-industrial areas, dark moths dominated, in others, light moths.
Ironically, this really isn't evidence for evolution, it is just a shift in population. Take this analogy, cull out everyone but black people in the world. (no offense intended). Is this an increase in information? No!

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Peter, posted 07-04-2002 10:17 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 168 of 174 (12741)
07-04-2002 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Syamsu
07-03-2002 11:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
As before, competition is not required in Natural Selection.

It may not be required by natural selection, that does not mean
that when present it is not influential in natural selection.
Competition is an environmental factor that needs to be taken
into account when considering natural selection.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

The longnecked horses simply go their own way, even when they are in the same environment as the shortnecked ones. Hence we have both horses and giraffes, in stead of just giraffes, or just horses. They do not neccesarily compete each other into extinction.

You're missing the point, yet again.
We have ONE population of giraffe-ancestors. Some have longer necks
than others.
Neck length on its own can have no impact upon reproduction, since
it is of no direct relevence to the reproductive process.
For long necks to become dominant in the population there must be
some stimulus (not just reproduction otherwise the distribution
would just be 1:3, 1:1, or whatever the genetics of the trait
would lead to).
What possible benefit could there be to long necks if there
was sufficient food at all heights ?
Perhaps long-necked giraffe ancestors could see predators from
further away ... that's still an environmental factor that
leads to a survival advantage, that leads to more long-necks than
short in the population.
Perhaps you could suggest how, in the absence of natural selection,
giraffes could come into being (by speciation if you are a YEC).
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

You are falling into a hole that I previously pointed out in the start of this thread, and repeated numerous times.

No, you are unable to understand natural selection and its
impact on populations.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

It is simply untrue that lowfoliage would have to be restricted for longneckedness to contribute to reproduction. Reproduction is a real thing, with actual offspring, and not a relative thing based on some comparison. The leaves on the top of the tree are very luscious and eating them contributes lots to reproduction.

So does eating the low growing foliage of other plants, otherwise
there would be no antelope, okapi, deer, etc.
Survival is a real thing too.
And again (though you seem to be ignoring it) differential reproductive success is not natural selection, it is a means of
measuring the impact of natural selection.
With plentiful food at all levels, what would cause long-neckedness
to have a higher prevalance in the population (of giraffe ancestors)
than can be accounted for by the dynamics of the trait genetics ?
That's what would have needed to happen for some giraffe ancestor populations to eventually become giraffes.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

You are saying that mutations need to match *future* environment, by saying that evolution happens from a changing environment. There seems to be sort of prediction involved with that on the part of mutations for them to anticipate the future environment.

No.
Mutations happen. IFF they have a benefit within the environment
that the individual is born into, then that will afford that
individual a survival advantage, and the trait will be more likely
to persist in later generations. If it doesn't, or is detrimental,
then the trait may be erradicated or fall back to a distribution
based purely upon the reproductive process (like hair colour in
humans ... although one could argue for cultural beauty based
selection there I guess
).
There is no prediction of the nature of the change at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Syamsu, posted 07-03-2002 11:51 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Syamsu, posted 07-04-2002 10:54 PM Peter has replied
 Message 172 by Quetzal, posted 07-05-2002 12:07 PM Peter has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 169 of 174 (12742)
07-04-2002 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by blitz77
07-04-2002 8:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
Ummm... peppered moths are not a good example at all... Peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks during the day.
‘But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time. In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere.’-British scientist Cyril Clarke.

You say they don't (I'm not arguing ... I don't know either), but then
support it with a quote that says 'We don't know where they rest'.
Pedantic, I know, but it doesn't seem entirely relevent.
Perhaps the leaves were soot covered too ... we appear to have
insufficient data there, though.
quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:

Then you might talk about all those photos. Do you really want to know how it was done? Dead moths were glued to the tree-D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, ‘Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation’, Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67—83, 1975

OK.
quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:

Also, there are many contradictory evidences of population changes. In some industrial areas, yes, the dark moths dominated, but in many other industrial areas the light moths dominated. In some non-industrial areas, dark moths dominated, in others, light moths.

OK ... so in different environments different colour distributions
were found. How is that a problem for natural selection ?
quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:

Ironically, this really isn't evidence for evolution, it is just a shift in population. Take this analogy, cull out everyone but black people in the world. (no offense intended). Is this an increase in information? No!

It's not evidence for evolution, its evidence for natural selection.
What has increase in information got to do with natural selection ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by blitz77, posted 07-04-2002 8:07 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 170 of 174 (12796)
07-04-2002 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Peter
07-04-2002 10:11 AM


quote:
"Neck length on its own can have no impact upon reproduction, since
it is of no direct relevence to the reproductive process."
Emperical evidence shows for longnecks to be functional in getting at the leaves at the top of the tree. After consumption of these leaves, the leaves went to constititute new longnecked bodies.
No impact? no relevance? you are saying things which are demonstrably false. Again, you have obviously lost touch with the reality of reproduction, through your focus on a meaningless comparison, thereby giving an excellent demonstration of the deceptiveness of the current setup of Natural Selection I had pointed out in the beginning of this thread. The above is still Natural Selection, it says that longneckedness is selected in, because it contributes to reproduction.
In your changed environment scenario the beneficial mutation would have to be present in the population at the time of the change in environment. In my scenario with a static environment the beneficial mutation can arise in one of a great many generations of the population. Therefore my scenario is more probable to find a mutation that contributes to reproduction, and your scenario less so.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Peter, posted 07-04-2002 10:11 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Peter, posted 07-08-2002 3:46 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 172 of 174 (12832)
07-05-2002 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Peter
07-04-2002 10:11 AM


Just for reference, since the conversation seems to have shifted to an argument over giraffes, the most recent data indicates that long necks are an evolutionary adaptation via sexual selection rather than interspecific competition for higher browsing capability.
Behavioral studies indicate that male giraffes use their necks in combat for females. Females have shown a decided preference for mating with larger males. The traits arose through a process similar to Muller's ratchet because males with larger and longer necks are dominant and gain reproductive advantages over smaller males. This results in offspring inheriting the genes for a longer neck and eventually eliminating the genes that call for shorter necks (such as in the giraffe's closest living relative, the okapi, who doesn't have this behavioral trait) since shorter-necked males were prevented from mating. Because each generation inherits genes for a longer neck, female necks arose as a neutral by-product of genetic correlation between sexes (Simmons, R. & Scheepers, L. 1996, Winning By A Neck: Sexual Selection In The Evolution Of Giraffe, The American Naturalist, 148, 772-786). Directional selection in action.
As an interesting aside, males fight pretty strongly for their position. There are numerous cases in the African game parks where giraffes have died from broken necks after these fights. Seems to mean to me, anyway, that neck length has just about gotten maxed out - much longer and we're looking at significantly increased mortality due to lengthening already vulnerable vertebrae.
Other interesting references with a bearing on this subject:
- Gould, S. 1996, The Tallest Tale, Natural History, 105, 18-27.
- du Toit, J. 1992, Winning By A Neck, Natural History, 101, 29-32.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Peter, posted 07-04-2002 10:11 AM Peter has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 173 of 174 (12839)
07-05-2002 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Syamsu
07-03-2002 7:20 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
Sorry but evolution can work without a change in environment, obviously, and this is how it typically works.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I thought you were constantly thumping the podium about puncuated equilibrium? A key idea of PE is that evolutionary change happens at intervals, and these "spurts" of evolution are brought on by environmental changes (or movements to new environments).
------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Syamsu, posted 07-03-2002 7:20 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 174 of 174 (13023)
07-08-2002 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Syamsu
07-04-2002 10:54 PM


I'm replying here ... but I have taken note of the behaviour
post from Quetzal too.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
quote:
"Neck length on its own can have no impact upon reproduction, since
it is of no direct relevence to the reproductive process."
Emperical evidence shows for longnecks to be functional in getting at the leaves at the top of the tree. After consumption of these leaves, the leaves went to constititute new longnecked bodies.

Which is why I say 'no direct relevence'.
You have just described natural selection as concerned with
survival. If the long-necks couldn't feed they couldn't
reproduce.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

No impact? no relevance?

None ... on the ACT/process of reproduction ... only on the
organism's CHANCES for reproduction ... which is what I have been
debating about.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
you are saying things which are demonstrably false.

Where ?
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

Again, you have obviously lost touch with the reality of reproduction, through your focus on a meaningless comparison, thereby giving an excellent demonstration of the deceptiveness of the current setup of Natural Selection I had pointed out in the beginning of this thread. The above is still Natural Selection, it says that longneckedness is selected in, because it contributes to reproduction.

No, it's saying that long-neckedness us selected in because it
contributes to survival ... and survivors can produce more offspring.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

In your changed environment scenario the beneficial mutation would have to be present in the population at the time of the change in environment.

Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

In my scenario with a static environment the beneficial mutation can arise in one of a great many generations of the population. Therefore my scenario is more probable to find a mutation that contributes to reproduction, and your scenario less so.

Without some change in the environment ... or I have to concede
sexual selection pereference (which are largely based upon expectations of survivability {bigger, stronger, better nest
builder ...} ) ... there will be no evolution.
Evolution is where the entire make-up of the population changes.
This means that the beneficial mutation HAS to be in place
at a time when it is nuetral, then spreads through a population
after several generations. IFF the environment changes such that
the expression of that trait becomes beneficial then selective
pressures work to bias for that trait.
Without natural selection in terms of survival I can't see
a way to tip the scales ... doesn't mean there isn't another
way of course ... but natural selection seems like a close
match to me ... when viewed as the struggle for survival.
Most critters spend much more time and energy surviving than
reproducing.
You seem to be suggesting that the SAME random mutation can
occur in individuals in different generations. Is that what
you are suggesting ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Syamsu, posted 07-04-2002 10:54 PM 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