Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9094 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,806 Year: 12,918/6,534 Month: 201/2,210 Week: 142/390 Day: 51/47 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   PZ Myers vs. Adaptationism
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Message 30 of 49 (765318)
07-27-2015 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by MrHambre
07-22-2015 10:34 AM

Lousy recording
First off I found the sound track more of a distraction than anything said. Almost quit several times, and wish I had as I did not see anything really substantive.
The cute argument about the nose ignores cultural standards of beauty as a measure of reproductive desire ... with different standards in different cultures showing different preferences for the shape and size of noses.
The argument that female orgasms have no selective advantage ignores the willingness of participants to repeat experiences that are pleasant and avoid experiences that are not. It may be that it "came along for the ride" with selection for male orgasm, but once in the mix it does have sexual selection advantages: more breeding → more offspring.
And we know from observing Bonobos behavior that this isn't just a human reaction.
To my mind selection operates to trend towards stasis in any stable ecology for species, and it is only when you have changing ecologies, or emigration to new ecologies, that things change.
In comparison, drift operates to trend towards random distribution of traits and potential loss of traits that are/were adaptive, so it trends away from stasis. This becomes more apparent in separated populations, especially when one population is small (founder effect).
In this way drift would be more important to the development of (non-deleterious) variations within a population, and hence maybe more important to speciation than selection.
If a trait persists in a population from generation to generation it is in effect selected, regardless of relative adaptive benefit/cost.
Non-beneficial traits/genes get selected when they are bundled with ones that have high beneficial/selective value: is this selection or drift or a combination?
Or is it just perspective? Species and individuals survive and breed because they are capable of surviving and breeding, not because they are becoming better "adapted" or because they are becoming more "fit" ... the "goal" is survival are reproduction not fitness\adaptation.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by MrHambre, posted 07-22-2015 10:34 AM MrHambre has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022