|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsification theory of Natural Selection | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
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!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: It may not be required by natural selection, that does not meanthat when present it is not influential in natural selection. Competition is an environmental factor that needs to be takeninto account when considering natural selection. quote: You're missing the point, yet again. We have ONE population of giraffe-ancestors. Some have longer necksthan others. Neck length on its own can have no impact upon reproduction, sinceit is of no direct relevence to the reproductive process. For long necks to become dominant in the population there must besome 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 therewas sufficient food at all heights ? Perhaps long-necked giraffe ancestors could see predators fromfurther 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: No, you are unable to understand natural selection and itsimpact on populations. quote: So does eating the low growing foliage of other plants, otherwisethere 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 ofmeasuring the impact of natural selection. With plentiful food at all levels, what would cause long-neckednessto 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: No. Mutations happen. IFF they have a benefit within the environmentthat 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: You say they don't (I'm not arguing ... I don't know either), but thensupport 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 haveinsufficient data there, though. quote: OK.
quote: OK ... so in different environments different colour distributionswere found. How is that a problem for natural selection ? quote: It's not evidence for evolution, its evidence for natural selection. What has increase in information got to do with natural selection ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6012 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
quote: 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I'm replying here ... but I have taken note of the behaviour
post from Quetzal too. quote: Which is why I say 'no direct relevence'. You have just described natural selection as concerned withsurvival. If the long-necks couldn't feed they couldn't reproduce. quote: None ... on the ACT/process of reproduction ... only on theorganism's CHANCES for reproduction ... which is what I have been debating about. quote: Where ?
quote: No, it's saying that long-neckedness us selected in because itcontributes to survival ... and survivors can produce more offspring. quote: Yes.
quote: Without some change in the environment ... or I have to concedesexual 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 placeat 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 seea 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 thanreproducing. You seem to be suggesting that the SAME random mutation canoccur in individuals in different generations. Is that what you are suggesting ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024