Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,627 Year: 4,884/9,624 Month: 232/427 Week: 42/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Simplified
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5956 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 91 of 170 (311062)
05-11-2006 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by robinrohan
05-11-2006 2:23 PM


Generalizations
All of our ecological models are generalizations (in some cases, attempted generalizations) based on observations of actual populations. There's quite a good literature base on the subject, beginning with the first quantification attempt by MacArthur and Wilson back in the '70s. Many of the mathematical models are extremely useful from a practical standpoint, others are more theoretical.
In terms of the discussion, things like carrying capacity, density analysis, species/area effect, extinction risk modeling, population viability analysis, etc, are all mathematical models that are particularly useful for practical conservation initiatives. The real danger is that people sometimes seem to forget that these are generalizations: the map is not the terrain. However, there's a lot of empirical support for each of them, and they are good tools if used carefully (i.e., with full understanding of their respective limitations). Basically, no one is saying that "this state of affairs must be", rather that we have developed tools to explain observations from the field that can be useful in a general context.
Does that answer your question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by robinrohan, posted 05-11-2006 2:23 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by robinrohan, posted 05-11-2006 3:53 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 170 (311069)
05-11-2006 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Quetzal
05-11-2006 3:08 PM


Re: Generalizations
Does that answer your question?
I was wondering if there's a factor of inevitability involved, but apparently not. It's a matter of saying, "As far as we have observed, this is the case."
What about this fact?
5. Fact: Some traits make an organism more likely to survive and reproduce, while others make an organism less likely to survive and reproduce.
Is this inevitable? Perhaps all mutations could be neutral? Are mutations themselves inevitable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Quetzal, posted 05-11-2006 3:08 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2006 4:08 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-11-2006 4:13 PM robinrohan has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2597 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 93 of 170 (311071)
05-11-2006 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by robinrohan
05-11-2006 3:53 PM


Re: Generalizations
Is this inevitable? Perhaps all mutations could be neutral? Are mutations themselves inevitable?
look at the mutations made easy thread by Quetz.
In that mutations do happen, you could say that they are inevitable. It is inevitable that the DNA replication mistake repair enzymes won't catch all mistakes.
It's a mutation that's responsible for cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia. It's also reponsible for well over one hundred genetic diseases. IOW, not all mutations are neutral, some are even horrendous.
As to fact #5, it's true. SCA, if homozygous recessive, will kill you if not treated, and it does this is roughly five years. No reproduction possible at that young an age. Not having the homozygous condition will give you a better chance to reproduce.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by robinrohan, posted 05-11-2006 3:53 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by robinrohan, posted 05-11-2006 7:07 PM kuresu has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 170 (311072)
05-11-2006 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by robinrohan
05-11-2006 3:53 PM


questioning facts
I was wondering if there's a factor of inevitability involved, but apparently not. It's a matter of saying, "As far as we have observed, this is the case."
Well, its inevitable that most populations are not increasing. If they were, there's be way too many animals on the planet. It seems so obvious to me I don't know how you can't see it. The claim isn't about all populations, just most of them. We can't have most of the populations increasing.
What about this fact?
5. Fact: Some traits make an organism more likely to survive and reproduce, while others make an organism less likely to survive and reproduce.
Is this inevitable?
Yes. Again the claim is only for some, not all, of the traits.
Perhaps all mutations could be neutral?
Nope, we know of mutations that are not neutral, they cannot all be neutral.
Are mutations themselves inevitable?
Yes, because of inaccurate replication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by robinrohan, posted 05-11-2006 3:53 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by robinrohan, posted 05-11-2006 4:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 97 by robinrohan, posted 05-11-2006 4:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 170 (311075)
05-11-2006 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by New Cat's Eye
05-11-2006 4:13 PM


Re: questioning facts
Yes. Again the claim is only for some, not all, of the traits.
It is not theoretically possible that all traits be neutral?
Yes, because of inaccurate replication
By "inaccurate replication," do you mean "imperfect replication"?
This inevitably leads to mutation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-11-2006 4:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-11-2006 4:32 PM robinrohan has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 170 (311078)
05-11-2006 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by robinrohan
05-11-2006 4:23 PM


Re: questioning facts
It is not theoretically possible that all traits be neutral?
Why do you care if its "theoretically possible"? Traits exist that are not neutral, therefore not all traits are neutral. What are you doing? whats your point?
By "inaccurate replication," do you mean "imperfect replication"?
Sure, call it what you will.
By inaccurate replication I mean replication as a thing. It is a replication that is different that the original.
By imperfect replication I think of the process. The process isn't perfect and leads to differences.
This inevitably leads to mutation?
Yes. After replication, when there is a difference, that difference is a mutation. The replication is imperfect, it leads to inaccurate replications that have differences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by robinrohan, posted 05-11-2006 4:23 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by robinrohan, posted 05-11-2006 4:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 104 by robinrohan, posted 05-11-2006 11:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 170 (311085)
05-11-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by New Cat's Eye
05-11-2006 4:13 PM


Re: questioning facts
Well, its inevitable that most populations are not increasing. If they were, there's be way too many animals on the planet. It seems so obvious to me I don't know how you can't see it.
Wouldn't it depend on how long they've been increasing and what rate?
Perhaps most species are increasing but haven't been doing so for very long, or perhaps the rate of increase is so small we don't notice it. Is that theoretically possible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-11-2006 4:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by robinrohan, posted 05-12-2006 3:38 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 170 (311089)
05-11-2006 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by New Cat's Eye
05-11-2006 4:32 PM


Re: questioning facts
Why do you care if its "theoretically possible"?
I'm trying to figure out if this process is inevitable.
Traits exist that are not neutral
What traits exist that are not neutral? How do we know they are not neutral?
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-11-2006 03:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-11-2006 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-11-2006 4:55 PM robinrohan has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 170 (311091)
05-11-2006 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by robinrohan
05-11-2006 4:48 PM


Re: questioning facts
I'm trying to figure out if this process is inevitable.
For what?
Why is it so hard for you to accept something even when everyone is telling you it?
What traits exist that are not neutral? How do we know they are not neutral?
C'mon now. Just think about it. A trait would have to not affect anything to be neutral. Aren't there traits that have effects?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by robinrohan, posted 05-11-2006 4:48 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by robinrohan, posted 05-11-2006 5:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 170 (311097)
05-11-2006 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by New Cat's Eye
05-11-2006 4:55 PM


Re: questioning facts
Why is it so hard for you to accept something even when everyone is telling you it?
Telling me what?
A trait would have to not affect anything to be neutral
I think we are talking about a particular effect not just any effect. It has to have an effect on which creatures reproduce and which don't, I think. Some trait that on the face of it seems like a survival advantage might have no effect on which life forms reproduce, those with or those without the trait. It depends on the entire environmental situation and the other traits possessed by the organism. One might even imagine a situation where having vision--which seems like an obvious advantage--might be a negative trait, depending on other factors.
So perhaps it is not a simple matter at all determining which traits are neutral and which not.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-11-2006 05:36 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-11-2006 4:55 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Lithodid-Man, posted 05-12-2006 4:50 AM robinrohan has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 170 (311100)
05-11-2006 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by DrFrost
05-10-2006 6:56 PM


RE: Evolution Simplified
quote:
To show this you have to show abiogenesis (I can't think of another option anyway). I've always assumed that was part of the ToE.
To repeat what I've said, you have assumed wrong. It's not that the question of the origin of life is not an interesting one; it is an interesting question. But it is a separate issue from the theory of evolution.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by DrFrost, posted 05-10-2006 6:56 PM DrFrost has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 170 (311163)
05-11-2006 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by kuresu
05-11-2006 4:08 PM


Re: Generalizations
In that mutations do happen, you could say that they are inevitable
I am referring to whether or not they are theoretically inevitable, and if so, whether it is theoretically inevitable that some of these be non-neutral.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2006 4:08 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2006 9:58 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2006 11:11 PM robinrohan has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2597 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 103 of 170 (311230)
05-11-2006 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by robinrohan
05-11-2006 7:07 PM


Re: Generalizations
all I can say is "duh!".
Look at my SCA example

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by robinrohan, posted 05-11-2006 7:07 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by robinrohan, posted 05-11-2006 11:10 PM kuresu has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 170 (311265)
05-11-2006 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by New Cat's Eye
05-11-2006 4:32 PM


Re: questioning facts
After replication, when there is a difference, that difference is a mutation
Imperfect replication is a mutation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-11-2006 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 170 (311266)
05-11-2006 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by kuresu
05-11-2006 9:58 PM


Re: Generalizations
all I can say is "duh!".
What are you talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2006 9:58 PM kuresu 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