Falsification theory of Natural Selection

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Sorry, but this is just plainly ridiculous. Maybe you do know more about evolution theory then me, but that is irrellevant here. Your scenario of a changing environment is demonstrably improbable and relatively meaningless (because it doesn't neccessarily introduce a new trait), although it does occur, as explained before.

​

So how did the blackness of moth work then, prior to the change in environment? Was it also a camouflage color?

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Yes, in a sense. The blackness of some of the moths worked as a kind
of anti-camouflage. This lead to the moth population being dominated
by white individuals, because their camouflage worked better, and
fewer were eaten.In this case it is a natural variability that leads to a change
in survival chances (i.e. natural selection).The change in colour frequency was a response to the soot
deposits on the trees. The moths were fortunate enough to have
a dark-coloured variant so that the species could survive the
change in the environment.Evolution does not happen unless there is a change in the
environment, because there is no pressure to change.Every process needs a stimulus and raw materials to work with ...
change is the stimulus, variability is the raw material.

Genetic variation is there, independent of environment. When a subpopulation (representing this species genetic pool) migrates to a new environment and gets isolated of the main population, the presence of variations better adapted to these new conditions, could allow allopatric speciation.What is ridiculous is the statement that environment is not related with evolution.Edit: This was intendend as a reply to Syamsu, not to Peter. Sorry.

​

[This message has been edited by Andor, 07-02-2002]

So then when a mutation occurs then there is no evolution? You are just mistaken.The blackness worked as anti-camouflage?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The moths of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain were drawing upon variability already inherent in the species' genome. Selection pressures for this moth are apparently influenced by the amount of soot in the environment. Dark moths already existed in moth populations prior to the Industrial Revolution, they were simply less common. The Industrial Revolution made darker coloration a desireable trait, and so the proportion of dark moths in the population increased. Comtemporary mutations are not thought to have been a factor.The source of variability in the moth genome *is* mutation, but it is mutation that occurred in the species in the past and especially in species ancestral to the present moth species.When a mutation occurs it may or may not be immediately expressed physically in the organism. Given that large portions of genomes have no purpose that we can discern at this time, the effect of most mutations at the time they occur is nothing. But some future modification to the genome can cause a mutation to be expressed.--Percy

And in fact, a trait may be expressed that originally arose through mutation that is deleterious in the organism's current environment. This is the reason proposed for why the preponderance of white moths in that study was high compared to the frequency of black ones prior to the Industrial Revolution. Black was not as effective as white on birch trees (although it was probably not completely negative, otherwise the phenotype would rapidly have disappeared from the population). With environmental change wrought in some areas by soot, the number of white moths surviving to reproduce declined in local populations, leading to an increase in the frequency of moths carrying the black alleles.

The moth example is a terrible example to explain the fundaments of the theory of Natural Selection with. It betrays a considerable lack of understanding of how to arrive at the fundaments of a theory, from the numerous influential Darwinists who have supported it's use as an excellent and striking example of Natural Selection.Were there also lognecked horses (giraffes) in the population, prior to long trees being introduced (change in environment)?A more ideal example of Natural Selection would be when from the start of a mutation, such as white wingcolor (the original being black), you could follow how this white wingcolor contributes to it's reproduction, by giving camouflage on white birch trees. The black wingcolor probably aleady has it's use as a camouflage color, maybe at night.To view the proportion black/white in the population is more or less uninteresting because it doesn't say anything about how the traits function, and it's deceptive because it implies that black-color and white-color do not each have their specific use (specific environment). Comparing them implies they are competing and one kind will go extinct.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]The moth example is a terrible example to explain the fundaments of the theory of Natural Selection with. It betrays a considerable lack of understanding of how to arrive at the fundaments of a theory, from the numerous influential Darwinists who have supported it's use as an excellent and striking example of Natural Selection. [/QUOTE]JM: Actually, it's an excellent example of natural selection due to environmental conditions as others have noted. It is also an excellent example of the type of observation that Darwin used to arrive at his theory (only he used finch beaks and the variation within). That you think it a poor example demonstrates that you have not fully understood variation due to environmental pressure.

quote:

---

Were there also lognecked horses (giraffes) in the population, prior to long trees being introduced (change in environment)?

---

JM: We are talking about Darwinian evolution not Lamarkism.

quote:

---

A more ideal example of Natural Selection would be when from the start of a mutation, such as white wingcolor (the original being black), you could follow how this white wingcolor contributes to it's reproduction, by giving camouflage on white birch trees. The black wingcolor probably aleady has it's use as a camouflage color, maybe at night.

​

To view the proportion black/white in the population is more or less uninteresting because it doesn't say anything about how the traits function, and it's deceptive because it implies that black-color and white-color do not each have their specific use (specific environment). Comparing them implies they are competing and one kind will go extinct.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

JM: What you want to discuss is how the pigmentation arose, which is indeed interesting (but outside of my area of expertise). However, this question aside, the use of the peppered moths as an example of environmentally driven evolution is still valid.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
So then when a mutation occurs then there is no evolution? You are just mistaken.

---

As others have pointed out mutation by itself does not equal evolutionEvolution cannot have happened without mutations, but equally it
won't happen without a change in the environment.That is environment in the commonly accepted usage rather than
your limited usage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

The blackness worked as anti-camouflage?

---

Yes. Black moth on white bark == very easy for birds to seeThe opposite of camouflage.

Sorry but evolution can work without a change in environment, obviously, and this is how it typically works. There are no longnecked horses prior to long trees, but rather the trees were already long and then mutations occur to the "horses" of which some get a longer neck. No change in environment but still evolution. In your scenario the trait most probably already contributes to chance of reproduction (like black color of moths being camouflage in the dark), before any change in the environment occurred. Otherwise you are projecting something like an anticipatory force on the side of mutation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]Sorry but evolution can work without a change in environment, obviously, and this is how it typically works. There are no longnecked horses prior to long trees, but rather the trees were already long and then mutations occur to the "horses" of which some get a longer neck. No change in environment but still evolution. In your scenario the trait most probably already contributes to chance of reproduction (like black color of moths being camouflage in the dark), before any change in the environment occurred. Otherwise you are projecting something like an anticipatory force on the side of mutation. [/QUOTE]JM: I think you read Lamarck's material rather than Darwin's. Better go back and check. However, let's use your 'example' from horses. I've no idea if it's accurate, because it sounds 'cartoonish'. However, let's assume that you are correct and that horses 'mutated' to longer necks to reach 'already tall trees'. Why would this mutation be favored if not for a change in environment? You are suggesting that the longer necks somehow favored survival. If that is true, then horses with the shorter necks were somehow at a disadvantage when it comes to food. I can think of one reason in this hypothetical scenario. The food supply accessible to the shorter 'necked' horses was diminished (an environmental change). Let me stop here by noting, once again, that your 'example' sounds remarkably Lamarckian with a 'mutation twist.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 07-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Sorry but evolution can work without a change in environment, obviously, and this is how it typically works.

---

You are getting confused between a mutation bearing individual
and evolution of the species. They are not the same.Without some environmental pressure there is no advantage
to any particular trait, and so the distribution of that trait
within the population is purely determined by the genetics
of the trait (dominance, recessiveness, co-dominance).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

There are no longnecked horses prior to long trees, but rather the trees were already long and then mutations occur to the "horses" of which some get a longer neck. No change in environment but still evolution.

---

That would not be sufficient to drive a trend for long necks
in the population. The only way that such a trend would be driven
is if, for some reason, the availability of 'low' forage was
restricted (perhaps by competition with another species, or
because the 'low' shrubs all die out, or ... ). In any scenario
in which it becomes a benefit to have a longer neck there MUST
be a change of some sort. It may be that the population which
contains the long-necked trait migrated from an area with
predominantly low shrubs to one with predominantly high
shrubs ... the environment can be considered to have changed, although
physically the population has MOVED from one environment to another.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

In your scenario the trait most probably already contributes to chance of reproduction (like black color of moths being camouflage in the dark), before any change in the environment occurred.

---

All factors need to be considered, naturally. Back to the peppered
moths, the plain observations are that when there were no soot
covered trees the population was dominated by white moths, and
when the soot covered trees were around the population was dominated
by black moths. The indication is that the camouflage effect
was MOST beneficial during the day.Remember that the moths example is not conjecture, it is an observed
phenomena which can be explained by natural selection. Not just
explained, it is predicted by the concept of natural selection.Just as an aside, I'm not sure that camouflage in the dark is
likely ... few nocturnal bug hunters are predominantly vision
based (are they?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Otherwise you are projecting something like an anticipatory force on the side of mutation.

---

No.For a mutation to be beneficial it needs to match its environment
in a manner which makes those individuals carrying the new trait
more likely to survive and ultimately pass that trait on.There is no prediction involved.I will concede that it is feasible to consider a mutation which
makes an individual better suited to its current environment
than its peers, but there is still a change to environment
because in that situation we have introduced competition as a new
environmental factor.

I was thinking in sympatric evolution, as a way of evolution without environmental change, but you are exactly right:

quote:

---

but there is still a change to environment because in that situation we have introduced competition as a new environmental factor.

---

Nevertheless, perhaps polyploidy, though uncommon, could be considered a case of sympatric evolution without environmental change.?

As before, competition is not required in Natural Selection. 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 are falling into a hole that I previously pointed out in the start of this thread, and repeated numerous times.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.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.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
As before, competition is not required in Natural Selection. 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 are falling into a hole that I previously pointed out in the start of this thread, and repeated numerous times.

​

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.

​

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.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

umm... strange example you put up there. Giraffes did not evolve from horses. Aren't they on different orders?However, giraffes do have a horse-like (or should I say antelope-like) relative, the okapi
http://www.ultimateungulate.com/okapi.html
It seems that both forms adapt to local conditions; giraffes exploit the browser niche in savannas, while okapi live as browser in jungles (fyi I think the okapi faced more competition because it has to compete with forest browser antelopes). They were not competing temselves out of existence.Competition in evolution does not always end in the demise of one competitor. Instead, it is postulated that many former competitors now live side by side because they avoid competition by evolving new subsistence strategies to exploit other niches.

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.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

We are saying just the opposite: Mutations occur independently of environment (Evidently the amount of UV radiation is also part of the environment, strictly speaking) . The species accumulate a number of genetic variants or genetic pool through time. When exposed to an environmental change, the capacity of the species to adapt, and survive to the new conditions depends precisely on the presence of viable variants in this genetic pool.