Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If Newton was a Darwinist
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 61 of 70 (16475)
09-03-2002 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Syamsu
09-03-2002 5:13 AM


from:: Evolution: Glossary
"evolution: Darwin defined this term as "descent with modification." It is the change in a lineage of populations between generations. In general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which new species develop from preexisting species over time; in genetic terms, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation."
Notice the stress on populations.
You may believe that mutation alone is evolution, that doesn't
make you right. Find some support for your definition, and
post it.
It's not playing with definitions, it is the theory of
evolution ... that's what it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Syamsu, posted 09-03-2002 5:13 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Syamsu, posted 09-03-2002 9:53 AM Peter has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 62 of 70 (16482)
09-03-2002 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Peter
09-03-2002 7:38 AM


My support is the reasoning I gave before. By your wordusage you would / could have different species, where one descended from the other, but you would not say the one had evolved from the other. You would then say that the one has mutated from the other apparently, but not evolved.
When, as per my example, a mutant reproduces, then you have an organism different then it's ancestor, and the new trait contributes to reproduction (in real terms, not relative terms), and that is what I understand to be evolution, mainly.
So I would include in evolution, mutants that split of from their ancestorpopulation into a different environment through use of their mutation, while you apparently wouldn't.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Peter, posted 09-03-2002 7:38 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Peter, posted 09-03-2002 10:21 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 63 of 70 (16485)
09-03-2002 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Syamsu
09-03-2002 9:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
My support is the reasoning I gave before. By your wordusage you would / could have different species, where one descended from the other, but you would not say the one had evolved from the other. You would then say that the one has mutated from the other apparently, but not evolved.

No the above is a reasonable description of evolution.
One species is descended from another, the differences accrued
through mutations that get fixed in the population (species in
this case).
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

When, as per my example, a mutant reproduces, then you have an organism different then it's ancestor, and the new trait contributes to reproduction (in real terms, not relative terms), and that is what I understand to be evolution, mainly.

No, that is mutation.
If there is a sufficient benefit to the mutation such that the
mutant has more surviving offspring than the non-mutant, and this
trend continues such that the mutant trait becomes the populational
norm ... then that is evolution.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

So I would include in evolution, mutants that split of from their ancestorpopulation into a different environment through use of their mutation, while you apparently wouldn't.

No I would include that too. I think I'm missing your point
somewhere.
If, by virtue of a mutation, an organism has a net survival
benefit wrt to its siblings it stands a better chance of
passing on its traits. If favourable conditions persist, it's
offspring will likewise fare better, and the trait frequency within
the population will change.
You cannot get away from populations wrt evolution.
One organism, alone, that is a mutant offspring is not evolution,
it is a 'freak'.
A whole population of organisms bearing a trait inhereted from
a 'freak', however that trait becomes fixed, is evolution to
me.
It's all about trait frequency of populations.
[This message has been edited by Peter, 09-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Syamsu, posted 09-03-2002 9:53 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Syamsu, posted 09-03-2002 12:07 PM Peter has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 64 of 70 (16494)
09-03-2002 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Peter
09-03-2002 10:21 AM


Again, a mutation, as I argue, theoretically can split a population in 2, each population (the new population that does have the mutation, and the ancestral population that doesn't) inhabiting a separate environment to which they are adapted to reproduce. Where are you then with your insistence on populational traitfrequency for evolution when you have separate populations?
The evolution of the eye is all about trait frequencies in populations? And ears too, and hair, and whatnot?
The evolution of the eye is about how the eye as a new trait contributes to reproduction. It does so by receiving light etc. etc. Again, in evolution we are essentially looking at individual qualities, not population qualities.
I think you are putting up trait frequency as an alternative to reproduction, just as you did before with survival. I've read this also in more standard literature, to describe units of selection in terms of contributing to trait frequency, in stead of survival, or reproduction. Needless to say I think these alternatives to reproduction are deceptive. All organisms eventually die, only through continuous reproduction are there any organisms left in the world. That is the special function of reproduction.
Besides if you have a glass of water and put in some colouring liquid which would gradually color the water, would you also call this evolution of water from colorless to color? Your meaning of evolution is too vague, it would largely also apply to coloring water and other things. Coloring water is what I imagine when you talk about populational traitfrequencies. But reproduction does not apply to coloring water at all, reproduction makes biological evolution clearly distinct.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Peter, posted 09-03-2002 10:21 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Peter, posted 09-06-2002 3:36 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 65 of 70 (16727)
09-06-2002 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Syamsu
09-03-2002 12:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
Again, a mutation, as I argue, theoretically can split a population in 2, each population (the new population that does have the mutation, and the ancestral population that doesn't) inhabiting a separate environment to which they are adapted to reproduce. Where are you then with your insistence on populational traitfrequency for evolution when you have separate populations?

It's not a population until there are more than one of each
trait-bearing organism.
This means that it is not the mutation that equates to evolution,
but the continuation of that new trait within the population.
If, for whatever reason, the population is divided such that in
one environment the new trait is 'better' while in another the original trait is 'better' ... that's natural selection driving
evolution toward two separate species.
The point of a single mutation within a population is not
evolution.
The change in the make-up of the population is.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

The evolution of the eye is all about trait frequencies in populations? And ears too, and hair, and whatnot?

Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

The evolution of the eye is about how the eye as a new trait contributes to reproduction. It does so by receiving light etc. etc. Again, in evolution we are essentially looking at individual qualities, not population qualities.

No. The evolution of the eye is about improved chances of
survival in some enviornments.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

I think you are putting up trait frequency as an alternative to reproduction, just as you did before with survival. I've read this also in more standard literature, to describe units of selection in terms of contributing to trait frequency, in stead of survival, or reproduction. Needless to say I think these alternatives to reproduction are deceptive. All organisms eventually die, only through continuous reproduction are there any organisms left in the world. That is the special function of reproduction.

That's exactly why organisms are not the correct level to
look at evolution at.
Organisms do not evolve.
Species evolve.
Evolution of a species means 'what is the norm for that specie at
a particular point in time?'
1:1,000,000 bearing a 'new' trait is not evolution of the species.
750,000:1,000,000 bearing a 'new' trait is.
Darwin's work that started this is called 'The Origin of Species'
and is, from the outset, aimed at describing changes in
populations.
To explain this, yes, we need to look at how offspring can differ
from parents ... that does not make that the sole subject matter
of evolution.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

Besides if you have a glass of water and put in some colouring liquid which would gradually color the water, would you also call this evolution of water from colorless to color? Your meaning of evolution is too vague, it would largely also apply to coloring water and other things. Coloring water is what I imagine when you talk about populational traitfrequencies. But reproduction does not apply to coloring water at all, reproduction makes biological evolution clearly distinct.

The motion of the dye within the liquid is more-or-less how I imagine
the change in a population over time, due to a selected-for trait.
In the liquid (an analogy) it is not evolution.
Evolution (in the context here) applies only to biological systems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Syamsu, posted 09-03-2002 12:07 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Syamsu, posted 09-06-2002 2:21 PM Peter has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 66 of 70 (16796)
09-06-2002 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Peter
09-06-2002 3:36 AM


You are not answering my question, the populations are separate in my example. It's doubtful that a change in traitfrequency, or the fixation of a trait in a population, can be meaningfully called evolution (because it doesn't mention modification), it is even less doubtfull that simple populationgrowth of a uniform population can meaningfully be called evolution (this is what happens in my example since the populations are separate). So then this case of evolution falls outside your definition of evolution, simply because you insist on populations. And again, while it may (or may not) be unlikely that a population splits in 2 through a mutation, the case shows that your definition is lacking generally. It will be more likely to occur that variants *within* a population use different sorts of resources according to their different heritable qualities, and your view of that by your definition is deceptive.
Again, if an organism is different then it's ancestor, and the difference normally contributes to reproduction, then that is the more meaningful definition of evolution, and also inclusive of my scenario of a mutation splitting a population apart. When a mutation doesn't contribute to reproduction or makes the chance of reproduction less, then I guess that is still evolution, although a less meaningful definition of it. It is just descent with modification.
Again..., strange that the fossilrecord is full of dead organisms with eyes, since you say that eyes contribute to survival. How come they are all dead then?
Again,.... I think this discussion is finished.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Peter, posted 09-06-2002 3:36 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Peter, posted 09-09-2002 4:38 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 67 of 70 (16948)
09-09-2002 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Syamsu
09-06-2002 2:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
You are not answering my question, the populations are separate in my example.

So you are looking at the evolution of two separate species
from a common ancestor.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

It's doubtful that a change in traitfrequency, or the fixation of a trait in a population, can be meaningfully called evolution (because it doesn't mention modification)

What do you call a change in trait frequency if not a
'modification' ?
If traits change, hasn't the population been modified ?
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

, it is even less doubtfull that simple populationgrowth of a uniform population can meaningfully be called evolution (this is what happens in my example since the populations are separate).

With no change there is no evolution ... your point is ...?
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

So then this case of evolution falls outside your definition of evolution, simply because you insist on populations.

The evolution (if you can phrase it that way) happened at the
split, after that is equilibrium ... that's pretty much a
standard defintion of evolution as far as I can see.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

And again, while it may (or may not) be unlikely that a population splits in 2 through a mutation, the case shows that your definition is lacking generally.

Lacking what?
A single organism (outside single-celled creatures) is an
unlikely (to say the least) candidate for the 'founder' of
a new species, just as the liklihood of a single mutation
causeing such difference that the offspring would be considered
a new species.
Evolution is an accumulation of gradual change, not sudden
profound changes in a single generation.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

It will be more likely to occur that variants *within* a population use different sorts of resources according to their different heritable qualities, and your view of that by your definition is deceptive.

Or they may use the same resources more efficiently.
What is deceptive in my view ... that's what I say NS is all
about.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

Again, if an organism is different then it's ancestor, and the difference normally contributes to reproduction, then that is the more meaningful definition of evolution,

No, it leads to evolution.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

and also inclusive of my scenario of a mutation splitting a population apart.

A single mutation doing this in multi-celled organisms is
unlikely, but would be considered ONE route to
evolution as I understand it.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

When a mutation doesn't contribute to reproduction or makes the chance of reproduction less, then I guess that is still evolution, although a less meaningful definition of it. It is just descent with modification.

If a mutation doesn't contribute to survival (or reproduction for you)
then why will it become a permanent feature of the species.
Mutations do not happen to ALL individuals within the population
and breeding will mask and or illiminate some.
If the effect is to make one less-fit then that means that the
non-mutant is more fit .... NS again.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

Again..., strange that the fossilrecord is full of dead organisms with eyes, since you say that eyes contribute to survival. How come they are all dead then?

It also contains many without 'eyes'.
All animals die ... contribution to survival does not mean
imoortality.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

Again,.... I think this discussion is finished.

I think you don't really understand the concept
of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Syamsu, posted 09-06-2002 2:21 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Syamsu, posted 09-09-2002 11:42 AM Peter has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 68 of 70 (17001)
09-09-2002 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Peter
09-09-2002 4:38 AM


You use a definition of evolution which is vague on 6 points,
- gradualness (this probably refers to a small number of genetic mutations, but then small genetic changes can have large effects, and besides changes are discrete, specific molecules are made through specific genetic changes, gradualness doesn't cover this),
- modification (I doubt modification is understood to be shifts in traitsfrequencies by evolutionists), and
- how big a traitfrequency there should be when you start calling it evolution, and
- when you start calling something a species, and
- your description of traits in terms of their contribution to survival, or contribution to traitfrequency apart from describing them in terms of reproduction.
Again, you can't cover mutants splitting of from their ancestorpopulation with changes in traitfrequencies in populations. As predicted, you just gloss over the fact that your definition doesn't cover this case of evolution, which doesn't matter much since your definition is already vague on many other points. Your assertion that NS is all about increased effeciency also fits in with that vagueness. Strictly speaking it's simply false, but then you have obviously thrown away exactitude as a scientific standard already when you wrote that.
I prefer the exactness of my definitions, and the simplicity, and power of logic of a general theory of reproduction on which it is based. It also covers lots more then NS, most all possible types of scenario's of evolution are instantly obvious by it, and more besides, since it also applies to uniform populations in changing environments for instance. Environmentalists especially should use a general theory of reproduction, as should people in zoo's and such.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Peter, posted 09-09-2002 4:38 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Peter, posted 09-10-2002 2:25 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 70 by Peter, posted 09-10-2002 2:39 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 69 of 70 (17044)
09-10-2002 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Syamsu
09-09-2002 11:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
You use a definition of evolution which is vague on 6 points,
- gradualness (this probably refers to a small number of genetic mutations, but then small genetic changes can have large effects, and besides changes are discrete, specific molecules are made through specific genetic changes, gradualness doesn't cover this),

No it refers to small changes from one generation to another.
As I understand it, ToE says that differences between species
are the result of an accumulation of gradul change over time.
It does not discount occasional sudden changes, but it is not
change alone that drive evolution, rather it is change + selection.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

- modification (I doubt modification is understood to be shifts in traitsfrequencies by evolutionists), and

Modification means small changes. Modification is not evolution.
Evolution is descent with modification.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

- how big a traitfrequency there should be when you start calling it evolution, and

If the trait frequency of generation 1 is different from generation
0 then it is evolution.
ANY change in trait frequency is evolution.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

- when you start calling something a species, and

When it is reproductively isolated from an ancestral population.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

- your description of traits in terms of their contribution to survival, or contribution to traitfrequency apart from describing them in terms of reproduction.

How do eyes contribute to reproduction?
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

Again, you can't cover mutants splitting of from their ancestorpopulation with changes in traitfrequencies in populations. As predicted, you just gloss over the fact that your definition doesn't cover this case of evolution, which doesn't matter much since your definition is already vague on many other points. Your assertion that NS is all about increased effeciency also fits in with that vagueness. Strictly speaking it's simply false, but then you have obviously thrown away exactitude as a scientific standard already when you wrote that.

ToE does cover that case, it is currently considered to be
extremely rare.
In sexually reproducing organisms this is highly unlikely.
One mutant male will have to breed with the non-mutant females,
and so remains a part of the population it was born into.
Even with single celled organisms, the mutant, unless it moves
away, remains within the population into which it was born.
We've talked about environment before ... you seem to be of the
opinion that if I only eat apples and you only eat pears we are
in different environments even if we are stood next to one
another ... I would view that as the same environment, and so would
ecologists.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

I prefer the exactness of my definitions, and the simplicity, and power of logic of a general theory of reproduction on which it is based. It also covers lots more then NS, most all possible types of scenario's of evolution are instantly obvious by it, and more besides, since it also applies to uniform populations in changing environments for instance. Environmentalists especially should use a general theory of reproduction, as should people in zoo's and such.

There is nothing complex about ToE.
ToE is logical.
ToE is not vague, if you look stuff up you'll find the answers ...
whether you like them or not is not my concern.
Your general theory of reproduction is not vague?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Syamsu, posted 09-09-2002 11:42 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 70 of 70 (17045)
09-10-2002 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Syamsu
09-09-2002 11:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
You use a definition of evolution which is vague on 6 points,
- gradualness (this probably refers to a small number of genetic mutations, but then small genetic changes can have large effects, and besides changes are discrete, specific molecules are made through specific genetic changes, gradualness doesn't cover this),

No it refers to small changes from one generation to another.
As I understand it, ToE says that differences between species
are the result of an accumulation of gradul change over time.
It does not discount occasional sudden changes, but it is not
change alone that drive evolution, rather it is change + selection.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

- modification (I doubt modification is understood to be shifts in traitsfrequencies by evolutionists), and

Modification means small changes. Modification is not evolution.
Evolution is descent with modification.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

- how big a traitfrequency there should be when you start calling it evolution, and

If the trait frequency of generation 1 is different from generation
0 then it is evolution.
ANY change in trait frequency is evolution.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

- when you start calling something a species, and

When it is reproductively isolated from an ancestral population.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

- your description of traits in terms of their contribution to survival, or contribution to traitfrequency apart from describing them in terms of reproduction.

How do eyes contribute to reproduction?
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

Again, you can't cover mutants splitting of from their ancestorpopulation with changes in traitfrequencies in populations. As predicted, you just gloss over the fact that your definition doesn't cover this case of evolution, which doesn't matter much since your definition is already vague on many other points. Your assertion that NS is all about increased effeciency also fits in with that vagueness. Strictly speaking it's simply false, but then you have obviously thrown away exactitude as a scientific standard already when you wrote that.

ToE does cover that case, it is currently considered to be
extremely rare.
In sexually reproducing organisms this is highly unlikely.
One mutant male will have to breed with the non-mutant females,
and so remains a part of the population it was born into.
Even with single celled organisms, the mutant, unless it moves
away, remains within the population into which it was born.
We've talked about environment before ... you seem to be of the
opinion that if I only eat apples and you only eat pears we are
in different environments even if we are stood next to one
another ... I would view that as the same environment, and so would
ecologists.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

I prefer the exactness of my definitions, and the simplicity, and power of logic of a general theory of reproduction on which it is based. It also covers lots more then NS, most all possible types of scenario's of evolution are instantly obvious by it, and more besides, since it also applies to uniform populations in changing environments for instance. Environmentalists especially should use a general theory of reproduction, as should people in zoo's and such.

There is nothing complex about ToE.
ToE is logical.
ToE is not vague, if you look stuff up you'll find the answers ...
whether you like them or not is not my concern.
Your general theory of reproduction is not vague?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Syamsu, posted 09-09-2002 11:42 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